Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion

fish601 · Sep 7, 2009

mared juwan said:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your "beliefs" cloud your judgement because you want all the facts to fit those "beliefs". I don't let my "beliefs" affect what I state as a fact. It's called objectivity.

thats what i think about most scientist :lol:

mared juwan · Sep 7, 2009

I knew this was a futile enterprise a few posts ago but this is the last thing I'll say here and it CANNOT be disputed.

Bedrock principle of science: Examine ALL evidence and objectively draw conclusions from the TOTALITY of available knowledge.

Bedrock prinicple of religion: Examine one book and make all other evidence fit what it says.

I'm out.

zorkan · Sep 7, 2009

mared juwan said:
I knew this was a futile enterprise a few posts ago but this is the last thing I'll say here and it CANNOT be disputed.

Bedrock principle of science: Examine ALL evidence and objectively draw conclusions from the TOTALITY of available knowledge.

Bedrock prinicple of religion: Examine one book and make all other evidence fit what it says.

I'm out.

I hope your other 2000 post was more helpful than that :dunce:

OregonMeds · Sep 7, 2009

zorkan said:
I hope your other 2000 post was more helpful than that

The head banging smiley and dunce smiley and what you just said was far less valuable, maybe what he said just went over your head.

zorkan · Sep 7, 2009

wut u say

CrackerJax · Sep 7, 2009

That post was dead on......

fish601 · Sep 7, 2009

A 94- to 90-million-year-old Sphaerodactylus gecko is one of the proofs that living things never underwent evolution.
pic bottom

http://www.living-fossils.com/living_fossils_1_1.php

The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution

PadawanBater · Sep 8, 2009

The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution

fish, pay attention to this post man, this stuff is important, more important than you probably know. It's important that you understand the implications of your beliefs in Christianity and your stubborn opposition to the theory of evolution. How important? Why would I spend so much time posting, post after post clarifying your posts and checking your facts? Did you ever ask yourself that? Others on these threads do the same because they understand the impact your simple little belief has on the rest of us. Hopefully you understand the hostility some people have towards believers, that right there is where it comes from. Your obliviousness to modern mental oppression in our society. You get some comfort you could simply acquire somewhere else, like the rest of us, believing in fairy tales, while people on the other side of the planet starve to death because they believe something different than the tribe the next village over...

Anyway man.. so I went and checked out that website you listed, did a basic run through.. (when I say that, that means I read 80% of it and skimmed 20%), I'll show you a few errors I found. I'm not a scientist or anything, but I've done a ton of research into the theory of evolution, I would say it's safe to conclude I know more than your average person. I check things, compare things, do basic research using more than one source, I know pretty much most of the newest up to date information about it, and I find it generally a really interesting subject to learn about, I study it on my own time. So here we go..

I'd LOVE an actual response from you fish, but I'm starting to think that's too much to ask for... I am spending a bit of time doing this, don't I deserve that much? I'll even make it as simple as possible, I don't like spending a lot of time doing pointless shit on the internet sometimes either...

The theory of evolution claims that all the living species on Earth descended, by means of a series of minute changes, from a common ancestor. To state the theory another way, living species are not separated from one another by absolute differences, but exhibit an inner continuity. However, actual observations in nature have indicated that there is no such continuity as claimed.

K, right off the bat, totally false.

Every single living organism on earth, ALL OF THEM, have DNA. Does that not suggest that ALL LIFE on earth is RELATED?

Also, what such observations in nature is the author referring to? - why doesn't he list any?

For example, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures that still bore fish-like characteristics but which had also acquired certain amphibious features must have existed. And reptile-birds with both reptilian and avian features must have emerged. Since these creatures were in a process of transition, they must have been deformed, deficient and flawed. These theoretical creatures claimed to have existed in the distant past are known as "intermediate forms."

Seriously...wtf?

Tiktaalik 375 million years ago - fish > amphibian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Ichthyostega 365 million years ago - fish > amphibian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega

http://www.tolweb.org/Ichthyostega

Pedopenna 140-168 million years ago - reptile > bird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/carnivorousdinosaurs/p/pedopenna.htm

Archaeopteryx 150-155 million years ago - reptile > bird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

Animals use transitional appendages like the beginning of a wing or beginning of a leg to their advantage in their environment. If they were not advantages, they would not be passed on, it's that simple. Clearly they benefit the organisms that have them. Just like opposable thumbs benefit us.

If any such living species really did exist, then they should number, in the millions, or even billions.

...Well, let's examine this claim.

There are 6.7 billion human beings on Earth today.

Given the extreme circumstances of fossilization;

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by

sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that existed for a long time before going extinct. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.
Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.
Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, nearly all fossils are "transitional," due to the improbability that any given fossil represents the absolute termination of an evolutionary path.

So how would you suggest there should be billions or even millions of fossils in our possession? There is a big difference between saying there are millions out there and saying we've found that many... There probably are BILLIONS of fossilized organisms out there, but we haven't found that many because they're so rare and we've only been actively searching for them for a short period of time. The amount we HAVE found you guys STILL dismiss, so what would it even matter if we actually did have BILLIONS anyway? Honestly...

In the face of the lack of intermediate forms, Darwin claimed, 140 years ago, that they were not available then but new research would definitely unearth them. But has it?

Without a doubt and conclusively, YES! There is absolutely no doubt among the scientific community that evolution - that is, modification in genes over time - happens. Darwin knew this when he proposed the theory, even without the transitional fossils.

Yet among these countless fossil specimens, no supposed intermediate form has ever been found. It seems impossible for the intermediate forms, that have not been discovered despite the rich fossil records, to be unearthed in new excavations.

A simple little illustration to explain the problem within this idea of 'transitional forms' or 'intermediate forms' and ''gaps'' in the fossil record...

Imagine we have 5 species of animals, all descendants of the one before it. Let's call them A, B, C, D, E. Those are our animals.

Animal A lived 2 million years ago, animal B 1.8 million years ago.. etc.

So the timeline for their existence goes in alphabetical order... A...B...C...D...E - notice there are 4 ''gaps'' in between each of our animals

Now say we discover an animal that shares some characteristics with B, but also looks a lot like C... It's a transition right? Now the timeline goes something liket his; A...B...b...C...D...E...F - now notice there are 5 ''gaps'' in between each of our animals. With the discovery of a new 'transitional species', it adds a new ''gap'' to the picture. That's the problem with this argument. The more 'transitional species' we discover, the more ''gaps'' there are. That is the way it's always going to be. Faulty logic on that one.

The argument put forward 140 years ago that "no intermediate forms have been found yet, but they will be in the future" is no longer tenable today. The fossil record is sufficiently rich to account for the origin of life, and it reveals a concrete picture: Different species all emerged independently of one another, suddenly, and with all their different structures. No imaginary evolutionary "intermediate forms" existed among them.

Blatant lie.

With these words, Darwin states unhesitatingly that his claim does not square with the facts—for which reason he has ignored them. That is the same situation for those who support the theory of evolution today; despite the truth revealed by the fossil record they blindly continue in Darwin's wake and turn their backs on the facts. However, this deception is a short-lived one. The facts are now far more evident, and far more identifiable. The number of people who have seen the truth and preferred it is rising, and the number of people who unquestioningly believe in fairy tales is on the decrease. The facts cannot be concealed and ignored, as widely as they were in Darwin's day. Genetics, microbiology, paleontology, geology and all other branches of science constantly reveal a truth that Darwin and his supporters never wanted, and that they perhaps never expected—the fact of Creation.

This last paragraph pretty much sums up your whole attitude towards this stuff fish. This is pure nonsense dude. All of it. Atheists in America are rising by the day, every single poll put out increases the percentage. The US is becoming more secular, less people are going to church, religion is on the decline. This shit couldn't be less accurate.

Please, for your own sake, get a grip on reality man. Let the fairy tales go, you'll come out a happier, stronger person on the other side, trust me.

SDSativa · Sep 8, 2009

Adaptation, not evolution. If evolution were true, it would mean everything on this earth was started by one thing. And if that were true there would only be one living thing on earth. How would it make sense for a fish to grow legs, when there are no advantages for this? It would be mutation after mutation that wouldn't benefit the original animal. It would benefit humans to have four arms, it doesn't mean we are going to evolve to have four arms. Evolution makes no sense.

OregonMeds · Sep 8, 2009

SDSativa said:
How would it make sense for a fish to grow legs, when there are no advantages for this?

Lakes, rivers, ponds go dry. Legs allow fish to find more water in another nearby swimming hole. It's a massive and obvious advantage, I can't believe I have to point that out. Even fish can can just walk on the bottom have advantage in being able to do so.

We have many many many examples of fish that developed legs in fossil records and fish that live today that have legs and this is very basic common high school level stuff here that they teach all the time. You should have learned this already whether you wanted to believe it or not if you are in fact over 18.

Here's the first fish with legs video I found taking one second to google:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOWA_sPGfLA

Clearly not fake, he exists

CrackerJax · Sep 8, 2009

A few years back I had several hurricanes come through in short order......I was FLOODED, and I do mean flooded. I had oplympic sized pools out there in the fields. Normally this area is dry with no nearby water.....yet within a few days...I had catfish....BIG ones.....in all the pool areas. ????? How can this be? The small fish appearing were no surprise since they are delivered by bird droppings (eggs).

But foot long catfish? Then one late night I walked out to the back properties and there they were.all walking around.... walking Catfish. They have not developed legs but are a perfect example of something making a move from totally aquatic to not being fully aquatic.

Evolution......

mexiblunt · Sep 8, 2009

I hear ya cracker. We go catfish fishing all the time. It's river fishing so we catch all types of fish but the great thing about catfish is you don't have to put them back they go on their own! Just take out the hook and they will always find their way back into the river. When we were younger we would bring them further up the bank to see how far they will go... I don't know the answer cause I wasn't going to wait around for a day or two to see em walk a mile. What distances were they walking on your fields crackerjax?

I will also bring up snakes and their "legs" what of that?

CrackerJax · Sep 8, 2009

As long as the air is very humid..... they can go a long long way. The big ones stayed and fed on the fish fry being born by bird droppings. One morning I noticed they were slowly leaving the fields at night. The ones that stayed, were eventually eaten by Herons and Hawks. There is a large pond about a half mile from the edge of my property.....I can only surmise they went there.....and then to a canal system another few hundred yards further on which connects into everything. Occasionally, even though I have no standing water nearby...I get an alligator or a turtle in my pool. Always fun... :lol:

mexiblunt · Sep 8, 2009

Finding a gator in my pool would be kinda cool, but on the other hand I'm glad I don't live near anything that will kill me lol. We get the odd cougar once in a while and maybe some black bears. No deadly snakes,spiders here.

CrackerJax · Sep 8, 2009

I've done hundreds of wetland projects and some of the very biggest in the southeast. I have been in some incredibly wild (by todays standards) places. I've spent countless hours in the water hip deep with 10 footers nearby. I had this one female who was at least 10 foot that would WITHOUT FAIL cruise real slow about thirty feet out from me parallel to the shoreline. Sort of crossing the T.... the T being me. I had this spot in about three (just at the crotch line :lol:

) of water that I would go for a certain plant. Every time I went to that location.....within an hour...here she'd come. Nice and slow....that's their trick .... I'm sure she knew me. Making eye contact is very important. It was a hoot for me, but after awhile, none of my crew wanted to go...... I'd go by myself after that. No worries.....alot of it is attitude. da dum da dum dad da dum (think jaws)

mexiblunt · Sep 8, 2009

Sounds like an interesting job! I hear ya with the attitude part. Animal behavior etc. I've always been good with that stuff but If I don't have to I would rather not. In my job I get to go to some pretty wild places myself, very remote by todays standards. heli in and out stuff. Surveying line thru the bush where everyday I get to walk places that very possibly have never been walked before aside from a few old native peoples.
This last year the researchers found an old.. shit I can't find the name now(geo-forms?) Round rocks placed in circles and patterns. We had to work around that site, they find them from time to time.

Kinda side tracked this thread for a bit sry. But we did have "sensitivity" training with some of the elders and they talked a bit about their beliefs and "religion" It was very interesting and in alot of ways scientific and somewhat appealing.

CrackerJax · Sep 8, 2009

Pagan religions are very deep and feel much more natural to the instinct of a human being. It's really a way of connecting with nature and finding the rhythms in all things. Going with the flow. Man centered religions don't flow.....

hanimmal · Sep 8, 2009

Adaptation, not evolution. If evolution were true, it would mean everything on this earth was started by one thing. And if that were true there would only be one living thing on earth. How would it make sense for a fish to grow legs, when there are no advantages for this? It would be mutation after mutation that wouldn't benefit the original animal. It would benefit humans to have four arms, it doesn't mean we are going to evolve to have four arms. Evolution makes no sense.

I just have had another epiphany moment with you guys that think evolution is wrong. Well at least Fish and Sativa.

You guys think that evolution means that one animal literally turns into another animal!

Like we are saying that chimps turned into humans.

Here is a direct example of extra extremeties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

Now lets say that those fingers worked very well, and somehow that kid has some kids. Those kids would have that trait (there is whole villages that have a high number of things like this). After a few generations two people that have this resessive trait get together, not knowing that they are distant relatives and have a baby, and there it is again.

Because this is (hypothetically) a desired trait, they mate, and on it goes until you have a section of the planet that have 6 digits.

As this goes on more and more, it could take over the whole population so that everyone has kids.

Or it could be regionalized. So that eventually that group of people are no longer considered homo sapiens. They are now homo sapisixians. And you now have two groups of people.

Btw this is very similar to how dwarfism occur.

hanimmal · Sep 8, 2009

Pagan religions are very deep and feel much more natural to the instinct of a human being. It's really a way of connecting with nature and finding the rhythms in all things. Going with the flow. Man centered religions don't flow.....

I agree. I think it is because it is very childlike reasoning. Wolves may eat me, so they must be evil gods. Sun is good and makes plants grow so the sun god is good and the plant god loves him.

Moon god is out these times of the month, so we pray those nights, because we can see it, and see our way to the circle easier.

CrackerJax · Sep 8, 2009

I think Pagan religions bring about a reverence for nature. It's more about living with it. Man based religion quickly exclaim the planet is theirs, and they can do what they wish to it. Go forth and multiply.....dominate all that you see. Is man predestined to dominate? In a way yes..... but domination comes in many forms. Ants dominate us, but on a subtler plane. It's how you go about that domination and survival that counts. The pagan religions give/gave homage to all. The life and death struggle continued, but reverence and respect were given.

Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Attachments

PadawanBater

Guest

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member