Thier are fish still around now which have developed fins that allow them to drag themselves from shallow body of water to shallow body of water.
Thier are fish still around now which have developed fins that allow them to drag themselves from shallow body of water to shallow body of water.
I've seen that. Isn't it also true that snakes have, what is commonly believed to be, remnants of long discarded appendages? I don't understand why people are so adamant about believing evolution is a quack theory.
you might not believe in evolution, thats your deal.
but i can certainly make a case for devolution.
as witnessed in this thread.
but i can certainly make a case for devolution.
as witnessed in this thread.
There is even a species of Perch that has been known to walk and even climb trees when its water drys up.
What more does he have to do to prove it? He's already used CAPITALS and MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION MARKS!!!!!?!??!?!?
Also, he's a professional engineer - now, come on, who else would you go to when you wanted to discuss biology?
Case closed.
But seriously, romans, one day the church will be forced to accept evolution just as it was forced to accept the fact that the earth wasn't flat, that it wasn't the centre of the universe, etc.
Yeah i bet it was a genetic mutation and chances are there was more then one with the mutation. The odds of people finding one of two arm bones over 365 million years old is rather low don't you think?
Why do you say genetic defect and genetic mutation like they are both nessicarly bad?
Originally posted by: dpm
What more does he have to do to prove it? He's already used CAPITALS and MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION MARKS!!!!!?!??!?!?
Also, he's a professional engineer - now, come on, who else would you go to when you wanted to discuss biology?
Case closed.
But seriously, romans, one day the church will be forced to accept evolution just as it was forced to accept the fact that the earth wasn't flat, that it wasn't the centre of the universe, etc.
Text
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
The preceding was an example of how easily religious
wars can start, on on what foundation they can start on!!
I fail to understand how finding a 365 million year old fossil
could prove darwin to be an idiot,,, I will have trouble letting this one go, also
wars can start, on on what foundation they can start on!!
I fail to understand how finding a 365 million year old fossil
could prove darwin to be an idiot,,, I will have trouble letting this one go, also
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: dpm
What more does he have to do to prove it? He's already used CAPITALS and MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION MARKS!!!!!?!??!?!?
Also, he's a professional engineer - now, come on, who else would you go to when you wanted to discuss biology?
Case closed.
But seriously, romans, one day the church will be forced to accept evolution just as it was forced to accept the fact that the earth wasn't flat, that it wasn't the centre of the universe, etc.
Text
i dont see any evidence provided of any scholastic publication by an early christian stating the earth was round, the big names he listed were non-christian
Originally posted by: dpm
What more does he have to do to prove it? He's already used CAPITALS and MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION MARKS!!!!!?!??!?!?
Also, he's a professional engineer - now, come on, who else would you go to when you wanted to discuss biology?
Case closed.
But seriously, romans, one day the church will be forced to accept evolution just as it was forced to accept the fact that the earth wasn't flat, that it wasn't the centre of the universe, etc.
It's also funny that IIRC the majority of Christian denominations officially don't believe in the 6000 year old theory and many (including IIRC the Catholic Church) allow for or accept the Evolutionary Theory.
I'm sure certain forum members don't think these denominations are real Christians.
Zephyr
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
I took an entire semester class that dealt specifically with evolution from differnt points of view. The biology POV, the phsycology POV and the Philosophical POV. Basically we had 3 professors that would argue amongst themselves about evolution. What did we find out? That [macro] evolution is by no means a fact. It is mearly the best way of describing our world as we see it today. Years ago, the people who believed in evolution were mocked just like the people who don't believe in it now. This was because our view of the world was different back then. The biology professor (who was a REAL evolution freak) even said that in 20 years, there will probably be some other big craze and the way we think about evolution now will be like medieval magic. People will wonder how we ever thought that this stuff was true. But that doesn't stop us from spreading this knowledge because it's the best we have at the moment.
Now for my oppinion. I think that [macro] evolution is a bunch of crap. After taking that class, I find it very difficult to believe that macro evolution could have occured on it's own. We are missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle, whether that is God or some other science that we have yet to discover. As it stands, macro evolution doesn't hold a drop of water because it's all just guesses. Here is an way of looking at it. If I were to give you 10 facts about an event that occured and asked 10 different people to explain the event to me, I would get 10 different answers (this has been proven, BTW, although I don't have any sources). This is how our science community works. Everyone looks at the evidence, but everyone comes to a different conclusion. Everyone's findings fit the evidence, but how can all of them be right? Answer, there isn't enough evidence.
I admit, evolution explains a lot and I think that something along those lines occured, but the theory is FAR from complete. It is so far that I believe that in 20 years we will look back at this and laugh about how naive we were. However, unless you have read the books and/or taken a class, you don't know jack about evolution. It is way more complex than you people realize.
Now for my oppinion. I think that [macro] evolution is a bunch of crap. After taking that class, I find it very difficult to believe that macro evolution could have occured on it's own. We are missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle, whether that is God or some other science that we have yet to discover. As it stands, macro evolution doesn't hold a drop of water because it's all just guesses. Here is an way of looking at it. If I were to give you 10 facts about an event that occured and asked 10 different people to explain the event to me, I would get 10 different answers (this has been proven, BTW, although I don't have any sources). This is how our science community works. Everyone looks at the evidence, but everyone comes to a different conclusion. Everyone's findings fit the evidence, but how can all of them be right? Answer, there isn't enough evidence.
I admit, evolution explains a lot and I think that something along those lines occured, but the theory is FAR from complete. It is so far that I believe that in 20 years we will look back at this and laugh about how naive we were. However, unless you have read the books and/or taken a class, you don't know jack about evolution. It is way more complex than you people realize.
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: dpm
What more does he have to do to prove it? He's already used CAPITALS and MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION MARKS!!!!!?!??!?!?
Also, he's a professional engineer - now, come on, who else would you go to when you wanted to discuss biology?
Case closed.
But seriously, romans, one day the church will be forced to accept evolution just as it was forced to accept the fact that the earth wasn't flat, that it wasn't the centre of the universe, etc.
It's also funny that IIRC the majority of Christian denominations officially don't believe in the 6000 year old theory and many (including IIRC the Catholic Church) allow for or accept the Evolutionary Theory.
I'm sure certain forum members don't think these denominations are real Christians.
Zephyr
Funny thing is no matter how hard I try I cant seem to find a single major religion that currently subscribes to the flat earth theory. Now if we wanna say that anyone that believes anything that is disproven later is wrong forever, I think we will never be able to quote anyone ever again
. (Newton for example)Try google, It wont help you pull your head out of your a** but it might enlighten you.
Boy all I said was Darwin is bad science and look at all the insults......
And I am accused of living in the past LOL...... Hangg onto Mr Darwin OLD ideas if you must, but I am moving on.
DNA baby is where its at
And I am accused of living in the past LOL...... Hangg onto Mr Darwin OLD ideas if you must, but I am moving on.
DNA baby is where its at
good post,
that is exactly how science work, someone comes up with a plausable theory that has more facts to back it up than the last theroy and untill some other theory comes up that theory is the one that stands. Currently evolution is the theory that has the most facts to back it up
my brain's contorting like a bootilicious r&b video dancer trying to figure WTF youre talking about
you call it bad science but Darwin proposed whatever he could based on his observations, besides newer evidence (WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE) elucidating the bigger picture i dont see how its bad science
you mention DNA, well guess what it EVOLVES, our genome is the continuing result of competitive pressures not unlike what Darwin hypothesized as the basis for species evolution
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter