Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are going to quote me, reply to what I said.
Your previous statement is simply wrong. DNA similarity is strong evidence for evolution, and it confirms many other evidences for evolution (which I linked).
For example, human DNA is more similar to chimp DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. This is evidence that humans are more closely related to chimps than to gorillas. Hence, primate evolution.
Your previous statement is simply wrong. DNA similarity is strong evidence for evolution, and it confirms many other evidences for evolution (which I linked).
Human DNA is more similar to chimp DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. This is evidence that humans are more closely related to chimps than to gorillas. Hence, primate evolution.
It is just as much evidence that a Great Programmer wrote human and chimp DNA at about the same time,and He wrote gorillas at some time distant. I could come up with plenty of other things similar DNA is "evidence" of. It just isn't evidence of evolution.
It is just as much evidence that a Great Programmer wrote human and chimp DNA at about the same time,and He wrote gorillas at some time distant. I could come up with plenty of other things similar DNA is "evidence" of. It just isn't evidence of evolution.
Yeah, we know you can come up with plenty of other things. That is easy when you just make things up. The trouble for you is that made up crap is not evidence...Now if you can show us evidence of this "Great Programmer" of yours that would be another story.
It can be thought of as a refinement of his original question. With this refinement, your reason for why mapping doesn't provide evidence for evolution falls flat. It still doesn't provide evidence for evolution, because there are other interpretations for that particular fact.
It can be thought of as a refinement of his original question. With this refinement, your reason for whymaing doesn't provide evidence for evolution falls flat. It still doesn't provide evidence for evolution, because thre are other nterpretations fot that particular fact.
You keep saying you have other evidence, so lets hear it....I'm all ears, or eyes in this case.
It doesn't make sense for a God to take Billions of years to create the Universe as is now days and some other billions to create humans through random mutations and survival animalistic behavior, all this would also mean that once he started the Universe he had to limit himself to use the forces he put on the Universe in order to men to come into existence and struggle to survive sleeping half the time he is awake, need to eat 3 times a day and oxygen, taking billions of years for that.
Which also, if we go to imagine a reality with living things were there is no God intervention..., it would have been pretty much the same as the one we are in.
There, the Universe and Humans existence nature don't suggest a God. You are just seeing the marvelous and complex RESULT but you're ignoring the process it took to became that, you instead are placing another "process" suggested in a Book by non scientific men.
Believing an almighty loving being put us here in love and heavenly lights, not only doesn't make it true, it sounds pretty much the same when humans have that emotion blindness applied in infancy, it is hard to grasp that babies come from putting a penis into a vagina and then months of biological process and then a lot of struggle and pain and blood and gore and maybe death, AND that's reality..., just as our existence, evolution was a lot of struggle, gore and survival violence. Nature doesn't need good or bad, it doesn't rely in emotions or morality. Morality is our capability to support harmony between us which then helps in our survival in an intelligent productive manner.
And even if evolution happen to have flaws, still, theists answers are not supported, and they preaching it as fact is irresponsible which makes it dangerous and therefor immoral.
By your logic,your evidence fo evolution is no more substanial than my evidence of a Great Programmer. At least the existence of human programmers prove that programmers exist in nature.
Last edited by hackwrench; 04-01-2012 at 01:02 PM..
By your logic,your evidence fo evolution is no more substanial than my evidence of a Great Programmer. At least the existence of human programmers prove that programmers exist in nature.
I ask again...Show me your evidence....talk is cheap.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
