Dima Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 I'll give you nine evidences against evolution. I bet you can't disprove even one. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between. Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies. The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think. Southtown 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 First I am NOT an evloutionist. But heres some back-lash. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. Bacteria and other single cell organisms didn't exactly leave behind fossils... Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". Biologist hate using the world higher. For all orgaisms have found a way to function for different reasons. They all have achieved teh same goal of life and homeostasis. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Not true. read my thread on "Get it Straight" It basicly says all things are made of Chem. and chemicals evolved. (Chem. Evolution) The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. I'm not sure what you are asking here. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. ok.... The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.Idk about you...but i have friends who look like monkeys...very hairy. Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Like....what? Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies. The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.Just another idea. But this "flows" with a bible text. the only reason it could be an explaaintion. It might have been a major medorite too. OR my fav....ALIENS! God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think. Ok...I am a christain...i know he is a devine creator...but that doesn't mean u can bash evoultionists. There are many people out there who support both like me. I believe in god and evoultion. Think about that....op5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 yawn, where do you get that BS information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 LOL! Orbsycli...lets be nice...probly one of those high filutant christain web sites that see evolutionists are the tool of the devil...thats all. :)Op5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 oh yeah i forgot, those exist! silly me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 Don't worry...Let me refresh your memory http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/devil.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dima Posted August 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 I'm not trying to bash anyone. I appoligize if it sounded like that. Please, if you want to understand the basis of all of these facts, go to this link. it will answer all of your questions http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 I gave you my comments and thoughts on all of them. It seems that u have copied and pasted these ideas. What DO YOU think about them? I beilive asked u a few questions in my previous posts. Op5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MortenS Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 And why cite something that is from 1995, even Creationists have evolved in their tactics since then...pun intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MortenS Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 ok, here is my take on this: I'll give you nine evidences against evolution. I bet you can't disprove even one. How much do you bet? There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. It is true that we would really like more fossils for the important transitions between major taxa. It is not true that we have not found any intermediate forms. It is also not true that we do not have any evidence for the evolution. One of the major points of evidence for a link between major taxa (fish->amphibium, amphibium-> reptile, reptile->mammal, reptile->bird)is that the hypothesis formed about their relationship based on morphological comparison, of living and fossil specimens is very much confirmed when you look at independent DNA data and molecular biology. See this link for transitional forms: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html and then this:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". First I need to know what you mean by higher order, example please. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Abiogenisis is not part of standard evolutionary theory yet, as it is still on the hypothesis stage. Many exciting hypothesis, in various stages of testing. Very interesting field. Has not much to do with standard evolutionary theory though. Humans resulted from animal, of course...look at yourself, then look at chimp. Do you not see the similarities? Nails? What other mammals have nails?Is it not strange that chimps share almost 99% of the genetic material of humans if we are not related somewhat? The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. Oh, I think many of the fossil finds of hominids have been quite conclusive...Take Lucy, very clear that this was a species that went upright, as us. Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies. Please name one. The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. Oh, please support this statement. For example by explaining how the marine fossils are found on in the Himalayas embedded in rocks. How did the water get that high? Where did the water dissappear to afterwards? God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think. Sorry, this did not help....still an atheist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted August 8, 2005 Report Share Posted August 8, 2005 A little late, but I've been buisy w/ the fry.... :) I'll give you nine evidences against evolution. I bet you can't disprove even one. Got a bookie?There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. Morton has answered well on this one, but for more specific evolutionary examples, the evolution of cetations is VERY WELL defined in the fossil record.Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". All I have to say is look around.Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Science seems to support these quite well. Perhaps you have some misunderstandings as to what science and the natural (I supposed to the supernatural world) world are.The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. The vagueness of hominid evolution will remain so in the fossil record. We are simply to close to the time period geologically to have a reasonble record in the fossils.Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. Ther is a very big difference between a monkey and an ape. I will assure that any fossils atributed to hominid species will never be moved to the taxa of the monkeys.The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.So are you saying that Homo sapiens have changed over time...OMG...that sounds like evolution to me.Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. When used in terms of social Darwinism yes, but that is just extrapolated from one theory to justify the maligned views of individuals.Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies. As opposed to religon? Such as what?The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.There is only one global strata and that is the KT boundry that marks the begining of the Tertiary.God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think.This is a large lack of evidence. I have thought and studied this quite a bit and made an informed decision, not an anthropocentric one with random forces working from one of literally thousands of creation myths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 It seems that yes...we can answer them. If they are the answers u wanna hear? maybe not...But yes...we can. Op5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 Dima, have you ever heard anyone say, ( Don't confuse me with facts, I will believe what I want to believe. ) So regardless of what you are shown you will always find away to say it is wrong, What you think is your right in america, and I'm proud of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 ... What you think is your right in america... Not true. I think I am wrong most of the time. And that doesn't bother me. O well Op5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 Bacteria and other single cell organisms didn't exactly leave behind fossils...op5But isn't that what "scientists" are using to say that life once existed on Mars. (from Martian rocks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 There are a great deal of micro-fossils... Here's a basic description by an Prof at Berkeley..http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Lipps1.html An extensive paper about them w/ images..http://www.bgs.ac.uk/reference/ostracods/docs/ostracods.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 Humans resulted from animal, of course...look at yourself, then look at chimp. Do you not see the similarities? Nails? What other mammals have nails?Surely you are joking, or are you the guy who previously admitted never taking zoology? Human's 'nails' are analogous to a horse's hooves or a cat's claws. THAT does not mean one came from the other. The fact that animals which were created for this particular planet are similar is not so hard to believe. I think it is more hard to believe that there is the amount of diversity as there is in the animal and plant kingdoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.