Users Online Now:
2,134
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,738,769
Pageviews Today:
2,405,573
Threads Today:
594
Posts Today:
11,100
06:39 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Nachos:MV8yNTM2NzIyXzQzOTk3NjQ5X0UxQURDMzc0] [quote:Galfeslaf:MV8yNTM2NzIyXzQzOTk1OTgzX0M5OEVBRDA=] [quote:Nachos:MV8yNTM2NzIyXzQzOTk1NTEyX0EzNDc5ODZC] [quote:Galfeslaf:MV8yNTM2NzIyXzQzOTkwMzM4XzQyRjc5Rjc3] [quote:Anonymous Coward 57281494:MV8yNTM2NzIyXzQzOTUyNTMyX0M5NTYyRjUx] [quote:Anonymous Coward 55920081:MV8yNTM2NzIyXzQzOTUyNDk1X0FDMUYzODRG] like duh [/quote] Why are 99% scientists believe in evolution then? [/quote] They don't believe in evolution in all its forms. They can prove that microevolution exists, but not macroevolution. However, because they are stupid humans, they believe that through sophistic arguments coupled with popularity, they can create "truth" where there is none and use it as an excuse for their adoption of such false beliefs in order to fool God into believing they were genuinely led to believe falsities, as if God cannot read their hearts and know their most inner thoughts. Their adoption of the belief of macroevolution is nothing more than an excuse to not admit they believe they are held accountable by a higher power - especially if the higher power has absolute truth on its side, as this would mean their imagined moral freedom to "do as thou wilt" is folly. [/quote] Endogenous Retroviruses PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that macroevolution happened. If you reject endogenous retroviruses as evidence, then you are going with 1 in 3 billion odds 200,000 times in EACH HUMAN AND CHIMP that has ever existed. These magical virus infections from the past must be haunting us and infecting every baby as they are born, in the same location with identical ancient mutations. [/quote] Ok. For now, I'll assume that what you're saying proves macroevolution exists. Endogenous Retroviruses aren't a normal topic of conversation around the dinner table, nor anything I've ever heard of as being evidence for macroevolution in academia - even though I probably should have heard about them with my math degree emphasis being biomath (which is mostly math...but still...). You'll have to forgive me, but I thought that the Christian apologists (including myself) had already settled the matter, due to lack of evidence in the fossil record and various other points showing the impossibility of macroevolution. So, I haven't felt the need to keep up with new macroevolutionist arguments. You may be right. I just don't know. Could you please link me up to something that will do the trick in convincing me, if you could/would? When was this evidence via endogenous retroviruses discovered? Before it's discovery did many people believe microevolution over time would result in macroevolution? If so, why would they believe this, in your estimation (without the solid evidence you say exists)? I still stick by my belief that most people that profess evolution aren't taking a very well-thought-out stance intellectually, but are mainly those that blindly believe the words of scientists or are those that "believe" for the more emotional, willful reasons I stated in the previous post. I expect you disagree with me on this as well, but that's what I see... Just wondering if you might have similar thoughts on the pre-proof macroevolutionist crowd. [/quote] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s[/youtube] this video explains how it works and is evidence for evolution. the details are a bit outdated, it says there are only 30,000 ERVs but there are actually around 200,000 ERV remnants(see: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060605#pone.0060605-Lander1) they have actually known about this stuff since the early 2000s. so its old, but not even many "evolutionists" know about this. it provides evidence for common descent. 8% of the human genome are endogenous retroviruses (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079666/) These are the ERVs that are only in humans and ERVs only in chimps (because they appeared after the split with the common ancestor) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/images/nature04072-t2.jpg (see: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html) meaning we share every single other ERV with chimps. this is how they are able to build phylogenies by looking at the shared mutations in the ERVs across multiple primate species http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254/F1.expansion.html (http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full) --------------------------------------------------------- there are no differences in macroevolution and microevolution, they are the same thing. same process. if you think the fossil record contains no evidence of evolution, most likely you don't have a very good understanding of evolution or the definition of transitional fossils. [/quote]
Original Message
Check this video:
[
link to www.youtube.com (secure)
]
Is this vid right or wrong?
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>