What's new

Evolution discussion

Saddly I do not think you do. Because if you would you would not argue with it.

Any theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. For example even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely - common descent.

If you don't believe in a common ancestor you can easily answer that by saying they have the same designer/coder so their designs/biological systems would look similar. This also accounts for all the different useful adaptation like a spider web for catching food, or a tube for sucking nector.

An ID theorist who believes in common descent answers it the same way you do...they share a common ancestor...and an intelligent force is directing the change from simple to complex.
 
You are like a kid who argues with parents about snow being blue. I am disappointed.

Don't tell me you believe in that story about a bear falling into the ocean and becoming a whale.

You are getting too worked up over this "atavistic" whale dick. Now if there were some discoveries of kids being born with shark heads or whale tales then I would drive to Canada and worship Darwin with you.
 
Don't tell me you believe in that story about a bear falling into the ocean and becoming a whale.

You are getting too worked up over this "atavistic" whale dick. Now if there were some discoveries of kids being born with shark heads or whale tales then I would drive to Canada and worship Darwin with you.

Why dick? Since when vestigial legs are dick? Why you are calling tail of a girl in previous x-ray I posted a dick? I can't award you any points in this discussion if you are not taking it seriously and start throwing words like dick and "crazy ***" theory. You are not discussing it with serious arguments, you showing your weakness and losing it.
What bears have to do with whales? Is that some kind of creationist legend? Whales have nothing to do with bears, read and educate yourself about evolution of whales please.
 
they share a common ancestor...and an intelligent force is directing the change from simple to complex.

yet there is not even a single evidence of that intelligent force directing it - now that is "crazy ***" story to me.
 
Creationists often say that the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago. With teachings like this, they misrepresent the Bible, which says that God created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”—at some unstated point before the more specific creative “days” began. Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years? The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1)*Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2)*End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

As to the actual length of each "creative" day, were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration .*.*. Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours. Even in the English vernacular we often refer to "day" in various lengths and ways! For example, back in "my fathers day" has reference to decades ago! Farmers use the expression "harvest day".....not a 24 hour period, but possibly weeks or even a month!

According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years and the Bible’s creative days allow for even millions of years of time each and since they were "work" days.....each creative day could have even been of various lengths, some shorter, some longer than others! Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1)

Significantly, the Genesis account shows that the expression “day” is used in a flexible sense. At Genesis 2:4, the entire period of six days described in the preceding chapter is spoken of as only one day. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time. Each of these epochs evidently lasted thousands, perhaps even millions of years. Since no humans were around to keep track of time, no one can know or even "assume" correctly how long each one was!

So, to conclude this segment of my post I leave you with THIS quote from molecular biologist Francis Collins on claims that the creative days were only 24 literal hours in length, “Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history.”

This may all be accounted for by timelessness.

All the genius physicists all came to similar conclusions about time.

Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, and Stephen Hawking:

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." ~Einstein

Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory led him to describe time simply as a direction in space.

Hawking's No Boundry Proposal: "The universe would be completely self contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

In this scenario God would walk through time like we walk into the next room.

We would be the only ones tethered by time.
 
Why dick? Since when vestigial legs are dick? Why you are calling tail of a girl in previous x-ray I posted a dick? I can't award you any points in this discussion if you are not taking it seriously and start throwing words like dick and "crazy ***" theory. You are not discussing it with serious arguments, you showing your weakness and losing it.
What bears have to do with whales? Is that some kind of creationist legend? Whales have nothing to do with bears, read and educate yourself about evolution of whales please.

Hate to break it to you but it is a Darwin Story:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

If you don't think whales evolved from bears why are you getting so excited by an "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick?
 
yet there is not even a single evidence of that intelligent force directing it - now that is "crazy ***" story to me.

You already think "evolution" is a positive creative force moving towards humans as the most complex.

I remember Siro trying to talk you out of that, so you are pretty much on board this particular "crazy ***" story boat.
 
You already think "evolution" is a positive creative force moving towards humans as the most complex.

I remember Siro trying to talk you out of that, so you are pretty much on board this particular "crazy ***" story boat.

Nonsense.
 
Hate to break it to you but it is a Darwin Story:
If you don't think whales evolved from bears why are you getting so excited by an "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick?

Because they evolved not from bears - it may have been his speculation but fossil records show us completely different story. Atavistic legs proves whales evolved from 4 legged land animals ( google pakicetus for your own interest and see if it has anything to do with bears). Atavistic human tails is proof that we evolved from apes. Atavistic snake legs are proof that there were once lizards. All embrios of today's vertebrates have gills proving that we all evolved from fish. Just a few undeniable evidences from thousands which leads to simple truth - common ancestry and evolution. Why I even need to discuss grade 7 science with adults?
 
Because they evolved not from bears - it may have been his speculation but fossil records show us completely different story. Atavistic legs proves whales evolved from 4 legged land animals ( google pakicetus for your own interest and see if it has anything to do with bears). Atavistic human tails is proof that we evolved from apes. Atavistic snake legs are proof that there were once lizards. All embrios of today's vertebrates have gills proving that we all evolved from fish. Just a few undeniable evidences from thousands which leads to simple truth - common ancestry and evolution. Why I even need to discuss grade 7 science with adults?

If you haven't noticed bears are 4 legged land animals that look a lot like the artist renderings of "pakicetus." I find it just as ridiculous to speculate that whales evolved from those "bear-like" creatures as I do if you substitute actual bears into the story.

Why does ONE "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick "prove" that whales came from a 4 legged mammal. Why doesn't it prove that whales came from a retarded 1-legged mammal baby?

Those "Atavistic" human tails could be "proof" that humans are devolving.

Yes, there was once lizards and there are still some today. Speaking of snakes and lizards. Did the retarded lizard baby of the snake's lizard-like ancestor lose all it's legs at once or one at a time over millions of years?

I just love the Darwin fish to human story:

Assume a fish swimming around in the water. (we don't need to explain how the fish got there since we know fish exist duh)
Then a couple of fish have a retard baby.
And the retard baby was different so he got to live.
The retard fish goes on to have more retard babies.
One day retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands.
It has butt sex with a squirel or something and makes a retard frog squirel.
That then had a retard baby which was a monkey fish frog.
Then this monkey fish frog had sex with a different type of monkey.
Then that monkey had a mutant retard baby with another...

oh just look at our fake evolution chart to figure out the details

South_Park_Evolution.png
 
If you haven't noticed bears are 4 legged land animals that look a lot like the artist renderings of "pakicetus." I find it just as ridiculous to speculate that whales evolved from those "bear-like" creatures as I do if you substitute actual bears into the story.

You just show me that you have not spend a single minute learning about whale evolution because you already rejecting it. Why I am even discussing anything with you if you do not bother? Pakicetus was not bear like at all. If you so desperate to find closest relative to whale in today's animals look at hippo and other hoofed animals.

Why does ONE "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick "prove" that whales came from a 4 legged mammal. Why doesn't it prove that whales came from a retarded 1-legged mammal baby?

You are not paying attention again. Where did it said it was one atavistic leg? You never seen whale's dick right? Since when dick has femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsal bones?

Those "Atavistic" human tails could be "proof" that humans are devolving.

You just giving up here as it does not explain your "designer". There is more then thousands living proof's of evolution and atavistic human tails are just one.


Yes, there was once lizards and there are still some today. Speaking of snakes and lizards. Did the retarded lizard baby of the snake's lizard-like ancestor lose all it's legs at once or one at a time over millions of years?

Legless lizards exist today same as snakes with atavistic legs. Same as amphibians with no legs. You are being ridiculous with arguments about "retarded" animals taken from cartoon.
Question for you, what is this animal, snake or lizard?

14uxc2r.jpg


I just love the Darwin fish to human story:

Assume a fish swimming around in the water. (we don't need to explain how the fish got there since we know fish exist duh)

Evolution explained how fish got there very nicely. You do not even need fossils to know how they got out of the water - see this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4NzYY66cXk

You are defeated and reversing to gibberish cartoon videos in your argument. I am really disappointed in you.
 
....."design" comes from a "designer!" The more complex the design the more intelligent the designer! Thus the expression "evolutionary design" is extremely problematic!

I can't believe you typed two whole sentences I agree with on an issue not related to the Jazz in the 1990s. Yes, "evolutionary design" is something of an oxymoron. "Evolutionary development" would be a better description of the process.
 
Back
Top