Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

  • Yes! Evolution is a scientific FACT!

    Votes: 14 45.2%
  • No! God created man in his form! We didn't need to evolve!

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • I'm torn on this issue.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • I'm not smart enought for this poll.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • I don't really care enough to have an opinion.

    Votes: 5 16.1%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .

Users who are viewing this thread

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Darwinists claim that by undergoing minor changes, living beings evolve from one species to another over millions of years. According to this claim which is refuted by scientific findings, fish transformed into amphibians, and reptiles transformed into birds. This so-called transformation process, asserted to last for millions of years, should have left countless evidence in the fossil record. In other words, during their intense researches for the last hundred years, researchers should have uncovered many grotesque living beings such as half-fish half-lizard, half-spider half fly or half-lizard half-bird. However, although almost every stratum on Earth has been dug, not even a single fossil has been found that Darwinists can use as an evidence for their so-called transition. On the other hand, there are innumerable fossils showing that spiders were always spiders, flies were always flies, fish were always fish, crocodiles were always crocodiles, rabbits were always rabbits and birds were always birds. Hundreds of millions of fossils clearly show that living beings have not undergone evolution, but were created. Hundreds of millions of fossils prove that living beings did not evolve, but were created.ATLAS OF CREATION - Harun Yahya

There have been numerous transitional fossils found...

A good example is the Archaeopteryx. A great example of a transitional fossil from reptiles to birds. If you like, I can post up numerous other examples, or you can just google it yourself. :dunno

arch.gif
 
  • 388
    Replies
  • 8K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Godsloveapples

Between darkness and wonder
Messages
1,918
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.08z
There have been numerous transitional fossils found...

A good example is the Archaeopteryx. A great example of a transitional fossil from reptiles to birds. If you like, I can post up numerous other examples, or you can just google it yourself. :dunno

arch.gif
Not a single fossil suggests that living things formed gradually, in other words that they evolved. The fossil specimens that evolutionists maintain as "intermediate fossils" are few in number, and the invalidity of these has been scientifically proven. At the same time, some of the specimens depicted as intermediate fossils have actually been revealed as fakes, demonstrating that Darwinists are in such a state of despair as to resort to fraud. ATLAS OF CREATION - Harun Yahya
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
There have been numerous transitional fossils found...

A good example is the Archaeopteryx. A great example of a transitional fossil from reptiles to birds. If you like, I can post up numerous other examples, or you can just google it yourself. :dunno

arch.gif

Not a single fossil suggests that living things formed gradually, in other words that they evolved. The fossil specimens that evolutionists maintain as "intermediate fossils" are few in number, and the invalidity of these has been scientifically proven. At the same time, some of the specimens depicted as intermediate fossils have actually been revealed as fakes, demonstrating that Darwinists are in such a state of despair as to resort to fraud. ATLAS OF CREATION - Harun Yahya

 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Birds are born to innately recognize their own kind, and will not seek out a different species. .

Too late the edit. I already saw what you posted. I'm quick like that. :p :D

Here's what you said before the quick edit:

Birds are born to innately recognize their own kind, and will not seek out a different species. However, some very closely related bird species can interbreed, producing hybrids. Certain species of warblers can mate with other warbler species. In the cases where hybrids are produced..these birds may have not been able to find a mate of their own kind due to decline in the population size of their species, so they went for the next best thing- which rarely happens.

My question to you then is that you do acknowledge that inter-breeding occurs, don't you?
Whether or not it happens regularly or rarely is really a moot point.

Don't worry, ain't no shame in admitting it. I won't hold it against you.
 

Godsloveapples

Between darkness and wonder
Messages
1,918
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.08z
Too late the edit. I already saw what you posted. I'm quick like that. :p :D

Here's what you said before the quick edit:



My question to you then is that you do acknowledge that inter-breeding occurs, don't you?
Whether or not it happens regularly or rarely is really a moot point.

Don't worry, ain't no shame in admitting it. I won't hold it against you.
I wanted to do a little more research before posting it.
 

Godsloveapples

Between darkness and wonder
Messages
1,918
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.08z
Oh, I see. Do your research and come back. I suspect you will find that inter-breeding occurs more than you realize throughout the years.
I know. I was just trying to get more information on bird hybrid. Anyways, I've found out that yes, birds do interbreed, but on very rare ocassions. Even though, this doesn't mean that birds evolved.
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I know. I was just trying to get more information on bird hybrid. Anyways, I've found out that yes, birds do interbreed, but on very rare ocassions. Even though, this doesn't mean that birds evolved.

Maybe so, maybe not, but once there's the possibility of it and if indeed has happened although rarely it cannot be ruled out.

Anyways, what I was leading up to was that inter-breeding does and have occurred in various forms of life which may have affected various transitions to take place through the years. And also too, to bear in mind that acclimatizing to different types of climatic and other situations would have a bearing on changes to in the adaptation process.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I do not believe in the "Evolution of the Species" type of evolution. Scientifically speaking, to make evolution jump from primordial soup to single cell organism, you have to simply skip over about 10 steps that are all scientifically impossible. Once life is around, then sure billions and billions and trillions of years might net you a different looking critter than the original.

It's the creation part of it that can't have happened. :)
 

LiberalVichy

Member
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You are making assertions about the probability and possibility of abiogenesis for which you are doubtless unqualified for, as it would require a knowledge of biophysics, biochemistry, evolutionary biology and mathematics which 99%+ of all PhDs graduate are totally unfamiliar with. It is ridiculous to make assertions as to the possibility of complex sciences when it's doubtful you could even make probability predictions for the behaviour of hydrogen atoms at a specific temprature, much less of all the chemistry on Earth.
Evolution did happen, and does, and since the supernatural is impossible, it must have arrived at that point through natural, logical, consistent laws of reality which - though they may be unknown to us - can not be coherently denied to exist.
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You are making assertions about the probability and possibility of abiogenesis for which you are doubtless unqualified for, as it would require a knowledge of biophysics, biochemistry, evolutionary biology and mathematics which 99%+ of all PhDs graduate are totally unfamiliar with. It is ridiculous to make assertions as to the possibility of complex sciences when it's doubtful you could even make probability predictions for the behaviour of hydrogen atoms at a specific temprature, much less of all the chemistry on Earth.
Evolution did happen, and does, and since the supernatural is impossible, it must have arrived at that point through natural, logical, consistent laws of reality which - though they may be unknown to us - can not be coherently denied to exist.

:eek Wow.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You are making assertions about the probability and possibility of abiogenesis for which you are doubtless unqualified for, as it would require a knowledge of biophysics, biochemistry, evolutionary biology and mathematics which 99%+ of all PhDs graduate are totally unfamiliar with. It is ridiculous to make assertions as to the possibility of complex sciences when it's doubtful you could even make probability predictions for the behaviour of hydrogen atoms at a specific temprature, much less of all the chemistry on Earth.
Evolution did happen, and does, and since the supernatural is impossible, it must have arrived at that point through natural, logical, consistent laws of reality which - though they may be unknown to us - can not be coherently denied to exist.


How is it that the supernatural is impossible? How do you suspect that nothing became everything with no guidance what so ever? I'm not aware of any theories in physics that can explain this phenomenon.

Furthermore, do you realize that your argument is based almost exclusively on the faith of a science you're saying cannot be fully understood?

The greatest collective minds in the field cannot give an answer as to how it is possible that life came to be. How is it then that this non-founded theory cannot be coherently denied to exist? :cool
 

LiberalVichy

Member
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
The supernatural is impossible since it violates the law of identity and non-contradiction (among others). A violation of the properties of objects (which is what the supernatural is, making something contrary to the actual properties of an object it implies that the properties of those objects - and due to their relation within the universe, all objects - are in fact not their properties and thus nothing has any properties and nothing exists. An argument in support of the supernatural cuts the ground out under itself, since it implicitly denies the possibility of the existence of logic or material reality at all.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Okay smart guy, then you tell me how nothing becomes something without contradicting both nothing and everything at the same time.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You know what... I read your post three times, and I'm pretty sure you missed your own point by trying to make it too complex.
 

LiberalVichy

Member
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
It's not complex at all, it's simple - IF you understand the laws of logic. However, most people do not and this is the source of most nonsensical ideas.
Basically, the supernatural implies the possibility of things happening which are not in line with the laws of physics, IE things may behave in a manner that is not consistent with their properties. This violates logic, and thus no arguments in favour of the supernatural as it denies the possibility of logic AND of the existence of things - since without distinct properties there is no such thing as any object whatsoever.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
It's not complex at all, it's simple - IF you understand the laws of logic. However, most people do not and this is the source of most nonsensical ideas.
Basically, the supernatural implies the possibility of things happening which are not in line with the laws of physics, IE things may behave in a manner that is not consistent with their properties. This violates logic, and thus no arguments in favour of the supernatural as it denies the possibility of logic AND of the existence of things - since without distinct properties there is no such thing as any object whatsoever.

Ummm How does this answer:

Okay smart guy, then you tell me how nothing becomes something without contradicting both nothing and everything at the same time.

again?

Nothing becoming everything IMO is a happening which is not in line with the laws of physics. IE, nothing will behave as nothing, and never become the Universe.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
As I read you post again, I come to yet another problem.

the supernatural implies the possibility of things happening which are not in line with the laws of physics,

I know a little about physics. There are several sub-categories that don't always play well together. It depends largely on the size of the object in question. Why is it impossible for something to exist outside of the section of physics that we have so far defined?
 

LiberalVichy

Member
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Physics have a lack of understanding of the premises. Thus the reasoning must be based upon observation of facts which can be taken as the premises of further argument. That does not change that the supernatural is logically impossible.
As to the origin of the Universe, the question itself is meaningless. To discuss something prior to or outside the Universe is to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the word and the necessary nature of reality.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top