The "simple cell" is more complex than mankinds most complex factories (Christians, beliefs)
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.
ya, but the problematic part for me is that the unbelievable billion year process of how the evolution of each and every species especially of human has been out of commission since the science book tells us so.
And have you been around even ten thousand years in order to make such a statement? I believe I worked out a timeline for Squall Lionheart and found that you'd need several hundred thousand years before you saw even the sort of changes you'd call 'micro - evolution' -such as Eohippus to Equus.
There are examples of evolutionary changes and adaptation in humans but because these were not like growing a third arm or wings, he rather turned up his nose at them. But in view of the evidence, why is it so hard to suppose that evolution is still going on, even though we have adapted conditions to ourselves?
All we do is look at the evidence and find it is there and so the theory deserves some credit, surely. And yet we are expected to believe religious claims which should have been fulfilled while some of the disciples were stil alive.
2,000 years later and we are still waiting and not a sniff of it. And these are the people who dismiss hard evidence for evolution just because it is not producing mammoths from moths in front of their eyes.
ooops his name is supposed to be Squall LEonheart. anyway FF8 rules.
anyway my WHOLE point is - atheist said they dont believe in anything they have not seen. and yet they believe we evolve from species to species without them witnessing it themselves not even those scientists that declared them as 'facts'... and so i say WTF, really? oh the IRONY. yes i bow to your mighty logics, lol.
Last edited by silverworks; 05-13-2012 at 01:01 PM..
ya, but the problematic part for me is that the unbelievable billion year process of how the evolution of each and every species especially of human has been out of commission since the science book tells us so.
Let's take evolution completely out of the picture for a second and let's focus on sciences that investigate history or past events. With forensic sciences one doesn't have to witness a murder to realize there is an abundance of evidence pointing to an individual who may have committed a crime. With archaeological science we can see how ancient civilizations lived without having to build a time machine to witness it first hand. Branches of climatology can tell us what the weather was like on the planet thousands and even millions of years ago. Volcanology can tell us when the last eruption of a volcano was and perhaps how intense it was and we didn't have to stand under it with a lava umbrella to gauge it.
I could go on and on all day but in the modern era we realize that science has developed some awesome tools to help us look into the past with accuracy and with a self-reported degree of error.
Some of the sciences I mentioned, by their very nature, are forced to examine a very brief moment in history such as the last volcanic eruption. That can be difficult, especially if we're after an eruption that may have taken place two million years ago. It's hard to collect data on a single finite point in history that was so long ago.
With evolution, we're actually quite lucky because we have a continuous chain of events to work with. It's a lot like a detective reviewing the tape of a gas station robbery. Maybe we're not able to see what car the robber pulled up in and maybe we're not able to see him enter the store but we can pretty much watch him walk around the store, act a little funny; maybe he'll even walk out of camera view for a second, and then he comes back in. When he finally pulls the gun on the attendant we've been able to watch the same character for virtually the entire time. No one with any amount of common sense is going to say that because we didn't see him pull up in his car that we can't tell who it is. Or, because we didn't see him enter the store or because he stepped out of frame for just a second that he is guilty. We got him on tape robbing the guy at gunpoint and his face is in clear view of the camera.
Evolution is like watching the robbery. We may not have every single second of the robbery on tape but we've got the guy's face in clear view. We've got him holding the gun. We've got him in the store at the right time. It's nailed down. Anybody who denies it is either completely lacking common sense or refuses to admit that the robber could commit the crime - no matter what evidence is shown.
ooops his name is supposed to be Squall LEonheart. anyway FF8 rules.
anyway my WHOLE point is - atheist said they dont believe in anything they have not seen. and yet they believe we evolve from species to species without them witnessing it themselves not even those scientists that declared them as 'facts'... and so i say WTF, really? oh the IRONY. yes i bow to your logics, lol.
And I say that you slander atheists. we accept as probable what has evidential support (on a sliding scale of how good the evidence is). There are many things we haven't seen such as neutron stars, the Hasmonean wars and the sinking of the Lusitania. The evidence is persuasive. It is theists who pick and choose what they want to believe on Faith. And if it conflicts with their faith, they dismiss it, no matter how strong the evidence. That's 'Oh the irony'.
As for Squall - Lionheart, that's the monicker of a poster who queried the soundness of evolution theory. I'd give a link to the lengthy explanations and paras of evidence if I thought for a moment it would be other than wasted effort.
well, that is the atheists' reason to not believe in God right? Have you seen an actual evolution as your science books tells so take place? so, why is it LOGICAL to believe this whole mighty evolutionary process took place billions of years ago coz your science book tells so. And then ironically call God believers FOOLS coz that's what our bible tells so? What is the difference? NOTHING!!!
!
There is a big difference. The main difference is that there is extraordinary evidence for evolution taking place. Evidence that can be studied, proven, and re-proven...... for the existence of God? None. Everyone else has already explained it to you much better then I ever could. So, if it hasn't been made clear enough to you now to make you at least ask a question that shows you are genuinely inteterested in learning about evolutuon or why atheists believe in it, or why it is the accepted version of human "creation", you obviously aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverworks
well my argument is that you atheist 'logicals' also believe in something you have not seen. true or false?
?
A big FALSE. We have seen evolution. We see it through the study of life biology. You clearly think you have a good point in which you are holding on to, but you don't. You are only making yourselflook like a fool with this argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverworks
anyway my WHOLE point is - atheist said they dont believe in anything they have not seen. and yet they believe we evolve from species to species without them witnessing it themselves not even those scientists that declared them as 'facts'... and so i say WTF, really? oh the IRONY. yes i bow to your mighty logics, lol.
Yes and your whole point is invalid and it has been explained to you why.
And African bushmen cannot come close to building a toaster much less a DVD player or computer cpu or circuit-board. Hell even YOU (and I) can't.
Humans have only been dabbling with DNA for less than a century. Give us a few hundred years or even a few thousand and then you can talk
And then we'll see what we can do with the entire universe...all 13 billion light years of it. Dabbling with something that is already here is no different than making something out of something that already exists.
by the way, the scientific evidences/findings is not always what it seems.
For example. We all know the earth is round, we seen pics of it. but we appear to be standing on flat surfaces. the sun and moon seem to rise and fall when in fact the earth,sun and moon are stationary and the earth is just revolving in its own axis.
sooooooo how do u know, those scientific observations of evolution of man is what it really is? riddle me that.
by the way, the scientific evidences/findings is not always what it seems.
For example. We all know the earth is round, we seen pics of it. but we appear to be standing on flat surfaces. the sun and moon seem to rise and fall when in fact the earth,sun and moon are stationary and the earth is just revolving in its own axis.
sooooooo how do u know, those scientific observations of evolution of man is what it really is? riddle me that.
by the way, the scientific evidences/findings is not always what it seems.
For example. We all know the earth is round, we seen pics of it. but we appear to be standing on flat surfaces. the sun and moon seem to rise and fall when in fact the earth,sun and moon are stationary and the earth is just revolving in its own axis.
sooooooo how do u know, those scientific observations of evolution of man is what it really is? riddle me that.
In the case of the roundness of the earth, the only thing we had to lean on was the fact that from a short distance the earth appeared flat. The evidence back then best supported the idea that the earth was flat. If the earth was round, then why didn't people fall off the edge?
The only problem was that the earth is very large and could have had a slight curvature thus making it appear flat. Also the idea of people falling off seemed reasonable but was not scientific. As we began to take pictures of the whole earth, we found that it was round, and as we learned about gravity we learned why people don't fall off a round earth.
In the same way, from our small perspective it appeared that everything was designed because it looked too complex to come about naturally. But as we looked in the fossil record, and observed evolution happening we found that in fact we evolved. We have a historical record of fossils showing evolution in the same way that we have pictures of the earth overall.
Evolution is backed by scientific evidence while flat earth theories were backed by observation of only a small part of the earth, and philosophical thinking. The flat earth idea is more analogous to creationism than to the fact of evolution.
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.
Dabbling with something that is already here is no different than making something out of something that already exists.
