Evolution was not proven true...until THIS.......I am SUCH the believer now- and you??

Science built computers blah blah argument is such old argument that even a 4th grader knows its wrong.

I'm not a 'theistic evolutionist' and I will never see the biblical portrayal of 'God' 2000 years ago as being representative of the real 'truth' or nature of the matter since I perceive it to be the creation of the minds of men. You are stuck in a dualistic mindset where you believe that things can be defined by only two possible outcomes/choices and therefore that you can conveniently ASSume that a person must belong to one group or the other. Life/Reality is much too complex and does not operate in that manner, so believing that it does will always result in limited awareness for humanity.

Evolutionist; yo momma was an orangutan or a gorilla and that is why you like bananas.

Creationists; yo momma was a harlot who commited incest numerous times with her own children sinlings and husband then claimed she was a virgin and you "just happened"

Now fuck off.

oh so you have some sort of unlimited awareness for humanity? cool man.

okay so everything is just here from eternity to eternity? no origins at all?

but you would ignore that same science that places those two people around 75,000 years ago and they were not the original humans ether if you researched this matter you would know their was an extinction level event some 75,000 years ago that almost wiped mankind out bottle necking our genetic diversity. You would rather take the word of some theory more than 1500 years old over modern science and dare to call us brainwashed idiots you don't even know the origins of Christianity just the bull shit that was fed to you to keep you a devoted fool that you are.

Another retarded post..

75,000 years ago? Got it from MSM right?

I suggest you turn off your TV a few minutes a day for a few days first and come back here.

What's really ironic is that we have devout Christian scientists to thank for the very foundations of the scientific methods and some of the most important recent discoveries to be made. We'd probably all be illiterate slaves (sliding back that way fast!) if not for Christianity.

Atheists saturate themselves in their own magical version of history.

I am an evolutionist, i do not however, claim to know the origin of life -- that is a debate for another thread. With that said, many creationists ask for proof of macro evolution. The majority of creationists focus on the fossil record, or lack of. 50 million years worth of mammalian fossils would never satisfy them. Absence of evidence does not suggest the theory is wrong. In any case, there is no absence of evidence for evolution, the evidence we have today varies from fossil to genetic to experimental. Remember, sometimes in science, it may take years and sometimes centuries after notable scientific theory debuts before their is sufficient evidence to silence detractors. E.g. Galileo's theory of the solar system, molecular theory, cell theory...

As evidence continue to mount on the side of evolution, the theory's detractors (mostly creationists) have refocused their criticism toward the areas of evolution were the evidence is sufficient for most of the scientific community and the educated, but not overwhelming enough to silence the uneducated and religious fanatics.

Ultimately, because of the advancement in genetic theory and our understanding of DNA, we have acquired sufficient and rock solid evidence to PROVE biological micro and macro evolution as fact. We use genetic testing in humans to identify victims and perpetrators of crime, as well as to establish family relationships and ancestry... This is a fact!

Thus, what happens when we turn this technology and compare the human genome against that of other orgasms? Well you see my friends, the DNA points to a shared ancestry for all of us. And if we go back for enough, we share ancestry with apes, and further, we share ancestry with fish...

Another question to ask creationists, are of the other human species that failed to compete against homo sapiens? Does this not represent further evidence of macro evolution? Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution, were some variations in the species may be wiped out but a more adaptable variation survives to reproduce. Repeat this process enough times, and the species would divert. It is logical and scientific, modern science came about only just recently, before the birth of modern science, there were many unscientific ideas that dominated society and kept us in the dark, unfortunately the bible was the source of many of those ideas.

Life evolving over time happens; it's all around us to observe.

However, the theory of evolution does NOT explain the moment of creation.

Why is it so hard for people to separate these two concepts?

Last Edited by Widespread Panic on 02/16/2013 09:09 PM

There is no third outcome, unless you think you're in the matrix..

'As evidence continue to mount on the side of evolution'-such as DNA sequencing and matching? Are you really using DNA to argue for evolution, and against an intelligent designer? That never ends well for atheists.

Man.....I'm tired of this...

if it can't be explained it must be god, fucking aliens, or left over Putin shit .......it doesn't prove god it just means you don't know....


:DUH:

Then agnostic thinking should be allowed in the schools. But there seems to be an indoctrination of one side.

Piltdown man
Java man
Nebraska man

Proven frauds that were taught in school textbooks for many years even after the frauds were discovered


He was first displayed at the 1904 St Louis World's Fair, and was exhibited with other pygmies as 'emblematic savages' along with other 'strange people' in the anthropology wing. This first stop in America was influenced by what some have called 'Darwinism, Barnumism, and racism.' (3)

Ota Benga later ended up at the Bronx Zoo, where he was put on display in the monkey house. Although zoo director Hornaday insisted he was merely offering an 'intriguing exhibit' for the public's edification, he 'apparently saw no difference between a wild beast and the little Black man; for the first time in any American zoo, a human being was displayed in a cage. Benga was given cage-mates to keep him company in his captivity—a parrot and an Orangutan named Dohong'
[link to onehumanrace.com]

He ended up killing himself

Documented evidence shows that the remains of perhaps 10,000 or more of Australia’s Aborigines were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the “missing link.” Evolutionists in the United States were also strongly involved in this flourishing industry of gathering species of “sub-humans.” (The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of over 15,000 individuals!) Along with museum curators from around the world, some of the top names in British science were involved in this large-scale grave robbing trade. These included anatomist Sir Richard Cohen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith, and Charles Darwin himself. Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four of the island’s Aborigines were left alive, provided that the request not “upset” their feelings.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1: 18-23

And God will judge those that tamper with his creation

And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Revelation 11:18

Ask the people who publish the science books.

Very sad but true. Then people cite these same museums as a reliable source for their theory.

Creationism is FACT...

Evolution Tards need to explain this?...

From the Moon...

[link to imageshack.us]

[link to imageshack.us]

[link to imageshack.us]

[link to imageshack.us]

When schools start teaching 'their is NO god' then let.me know. If they're just teaching science then stfu..just because they are not teaching YOUR fairytale does not mean they are teaching 'NO GOD'

So what are they teaching?

Carrying on though, why do creationist simians still believe that the theory of evolution is Darwinian?
That's like saying we still use the same theory and understanding for gravity that Newton postulated.

Is it because they can't think further than that (that's IF they can even think in a modern way at all).

Science...backed by facts and hard evidence....they even admit some things are theories......unlike religion which is just blind faith and ignorance which apparently is fact without evidence ...which religious fairytale do you suggest we teach...yours..:duh:

I wonder how long it took OP to realize the animals in the video are photoshopped.

oh please enlighten me as to when micro evolution becomes macro evolution and then no longer true.

i tell you there are intergeneric crosses resulting in new plant species, (i can site examples) and you tell me these are adaptations within a species.

did you study reading comprehension in grade school?

finally no, we are not talking about my feelings irrevelant or otherwise, i did mention your gut feelings, about genesis, which is all you have to offer.

i offered observations that could point to evolution, but stated that they were not absolute proof of evolution.

and yes, it is incumbent on you to produce something other than tired, worn out scripture to lend credence to your inescapable facts.

please, tell me you have some evidence to point me towards creationism other than your feelings about what is true from your lifetime of bible study.

one more note, spare me the ken hovind videos produced in cell block d.

A rib bone can regenerate. Thus Adam was still a perfect creation after his rib bone was removed.

Gravity is only imagination also

]

The burden of proof is on the evolutionists. Start looking at your own 'theory', and the observations its based on (if any). This is why origins is a topic of religion, not science.


here are my personal observations as a botanist and a lifetime of commercial greenhouse operation.

there are intergeneric crosses in the plant word . these are rare but do exist. given billions of years, certainly these crosses would occur in nature, resulting in new species. yes, new species.

i have battled insects, that in a few short generations, become oblivious to the most toxic of sprays, and some (thrips) develop tendencies to move their young to places of safety until those sprays have dried.

and the ubiquitous apple tree, denied the natural defense of evolution,
cloned,(grafted) exactly the same genetic makeup, year on year generation upon generation. meanwhile the insects and disease pathogens who prey upon it, evolve yes i said evolve to thwart ever increasing applications of ever more toxic chemicals and expensive cultural practices.

the commercial varieties of apple tree is now the most sprayed economic crop in the world. these trees are helplessly dependent on the orchardist.

undeniable proof of evolution? certainly not. but to see these things in their progress is definitely an indication that an animal could,over generations develop a longer and longer neck to access hard to reach edible foliage.

of course, i can see why i should discard this experience in the face of your gut feelings and one chapter of a book you read.

------------------------------------------------------------
​
The example you gave- Isn't that merely natural selection?
Traits favorable within that changing environment you caused, that are already within the genetic potential, will come to the fore, over short-lived generations of insects, .

It is Darwin that first popularized this theory. You protesting that it is not of Darwin makes you an idiot. Read the historical accounts of how this theory was embraced by the white European races to justify slavery of the less developed "primates"
I will give you this though, most of the work he claimed as his own, was written by his father, which he never gave any credit.


In 2009 we "celebrated" the 150 year anniversary of the birth of the theory of evolution through the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin in 1859. Coincidentally this is also the 200 year anniversary of the birth of Darwin (1809-1882) himself. Darwin’s theory became the basis for a belief system - a new 'religion' called evolution - allowing for an explanation for our existence independent from God.

[link to www.windmillministries.org]


Yes, you do use the same theory, you just enhance it along the way as it is proven out to be a fallen theory for a godless world of dead and daily dying "simians" - a word of choice among the God haters who go about establishing that all mankind is not equal as some are more evolved. Read about the theory (that is now considered fact) that Darwin presents on women being less evolved than men.

I hope you live above the first floor......I'd like to test a theory.