No such thing as evolution

Evolutionists only have faith too, the theory of evolution has no facts just a collection of ideas that people have continued to add on to over the years to make it sound believable

 

how do they have faith? The theory of evolution is basically a proven fact. We have fossils, DNA records, and you can see it in the evolution of human skulls. and to make it sound believable? How is the bible more believable than evolution? All that the bible says is that god created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th. once again, until you can prove to me that your so called god exists, then have a nice day.

 

you obviously have no idea what the hell you're talking about

:\

what DNA records?

Fossils are nothing but AGE OLD bones that scientists put together that they THINK are what dinosaurs or humans or w/e looked like

 

actually, if you would read up on your biology you would find out that scientist dont just find fossils in sedimentary rock..

they also find them in amber (hardened sap) and ice. These both preserve the DNA of the creature so we can study it and get an idea of how it lived, and what it must of looked like.

 

nothing is concrete

it's all just a guess

and how does DNA tell you how an animal lived or what it looked like?

 

whats all just a guess? your explanation is just a guess?

 

..

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS ALL A GUESS

AND YOU HAVE DNA RECORDS OF WHAT?

FOSSILS OF WHAT?

you're clueless, kid

 

I LOVE CAPS..

anyways,

we have DNA records of animals that live in the past. like my reply i just posted..like..5 minutes ago.

FOSSILS OF BEETLES, MAMMOTHS, AND SOME OTHER STUFF.

and kid? My sir, how old are you? you must be way old to be calling me kid.

 

lmao

arguing with you is futile, do some actual research in a topic before debating about it

 

you never answered my last question?

and what research would you like me to do Mr. know it all? please provide me evidence for what you are saying, and if you are a god worshiper please provide me evidence of god.

 

Okay, so let's throw out geology, paleontology, carbon-dating, biology and embryology to name a few. If you deny the facts of evolution, toss out all the gains in treating viruses and bacteria. things that evolve with the human body and or whatever its host may be, exactly as the theory portrays.

There is no comparision in creationism and evolution, sorry. Creationism is a silly theory made up to coincide with the religion of an ignorant people.

Please, oh, pleaseeee show me research proving creationism. And don't come to us with something disproving evolution, as that only diverts us away from what we want to see...PROOF of creationism. If you find any I think you'll be the first so good luck. Oh, and if you realize that you can't find anything to back up your point please don't come back with something like your last post as it only shows your ignorance and denial towards the subject.

 

You might want to research it quite a bit more.

Not at all correct. If you walked into any center of science or knowledge, such as a museum, university, etc., you would be scorned.

Oh, I'm glad you asked. We have fossils of different forms of life from different time periods in the Earth's history. They range from simple cells to Australopithecines.

 

nah nah nah nah shredder to the rescure

 

Shredder to the rescue indeed. Allthough, I think anyone trying to say evolution has no more evidence than creationism is dening themselves.

 

yeah, Evolution has fossils, DNA, and other stuff.

Whilst Creationism only has a book.

 

Evolution
-geology
-paleontology
-carbon-dating
-biology
-embryology
-uranium/radioactive decay
-continental drift


I know I'm missing some, if you notice let me know so I can add to the list...

Creation
faith

 

what are you saying by this?

you cannot consider this arguement a "Cristianity vs Evolution"

its much more of a "Thiesm vs Evolution"


you are cinsidering Creationism only as Christianity making refrence to the Bible, as the book, this is obvious, but not all Thiesm is composed of that.

When attacking this book, what can you say is incorrect about it?



Can you say to me why evolution is so correct, instead of saying yea it is look at our evidence *Shows None*

 

rofl first of all, nice edit.

anyways back on topic.

i have a treasure hunt for you, in this thread i have posted many supporting statements for my statements. your job is to find them because i dont feel like posting them again.

there is a neat little chart on this thread also! it shows the evolution of the human skull.

 

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

 

Guess what I had a neet little chart too! it shows how logically with evolution of man, that we couldn't of been around very long, or there would be billions of more people on the earth. Because there is a chart, doesn't mean its true


I don't get much time to sit down with a computer, and I'm not really willing to waste the little time I get to try and hunt for what you support. It would of been easier for you to just post here

thanks for ignorance against the rest of my post

Dont get me wrong Shredderbeam, I love wiki as much as the next person who needs a fast source of information, I haven't looked at the article, but wikipedia is always full of holes, lies, and bias oppinions, ill take a look at it, but I'm not willing to consider wikipedia, unless the information is backed by a better source.



Within wikipedia so far I have read "best examples of evolutionary history" which is backed by a fossil found of a Hyracotherium or small horse, (about the size of a fox) that then evolved into the horse we have today? It shows no picture, of the fossil found, and only pictures, of what the exolution was THOUGHT to be like.

To my understanding this Small Horse is much like the miniture horses we have today. So from my understanding with in 54 million years, we have a normal hourse, and a miniture hose, but none in between. These are still both alive today. I am not saying the miniture horses of today are that same as the Hyracotherium supposidley 54 million years old, but it seems very similar



Further from my understanding from evoltuion, they have a gap of 100 milliom years, and from my understanding without clicking on many of the links, that there is no real connection between sponges jellyfish ect. "evolving" into a creature with bones.


From here I understand that evolution from one animal to another, is simple looking for common bones, or structures within the animal and looking for a similarity within another animal. If these bones, or structures, match then the animals are considered to be of the same ancestry, or "evolved" from the same animal.

Then after comparing these, evolutionists also look for common things such as, now this is an example givin in wikipedia, "Wings of bats birds and insects" "jointed legs of insects and vertebreates" "tail fin of fish whale, and lobster"


So far to me evolution sounds like looking for the quite obvious, or the chance of two things having the same structure, saying they must be of the same family, and have a common ancestor.



The article goes into boring geography, I skimmed, found nothing interesting


Please tell me if everything is correct so far, I must leave for now, I hope my views upon these things are correct so far