JustThinking
Member
fantôme profane;2885894 said:
I am just wondering exactly how many more fossils we need to find to fill in all these huge gaps?
LOL I can morph a rabbit skull to a human with simple software
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence against Evolution
- Thread starter Pegg
- Start date
LOL I can morph a rabbit skull to a human with simple software
JustThinking
Member
JustThinking
Member
What happened to CRo magnon?
Recent research over the past 20 years or so, however, has led scholars to believe that the physical dimensions of so-called 'Cro-Magnon' are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation. Scientists today use 'Anatomically Modern Human' (AMH) or 'Early Modern Human' (EMH) to designate the Upper Paleolithic human beings who looked a lot like us, but did not have the complete suite of modern human behaviors.
Recent research over the past 20 years or so, however, has led scholars to believe that the physical dimensions of so-called 'Cro-Magnon' are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation. Scientists today use 'Anatomically Modern Human' (AMH) or 'Early Modern Human' (EMH) to designate the Upper Paleolithic human beings who looked a lot like us, but did not have the complete suite of modern human behaviors.
Last edited:
And the digital images will be dug up in a billion years, ok
JustThinking
Member
The fossils that led up to the first pic would be Great!
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
You can define ignorance however you like.
The fact is that you are revealing just how desperate you are to remain ignorant in order to protect your beliefs.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Yes, your belief that your strawmen are about evolution is one of your biggest problems.
dust1n
Zindīq
This right here might be the most succient illustration to how badly one can misunderstand not only what evolution is, but what science is...
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Plagiarism is frowned upon on this forum.
You mean that these skulls don't exist in reality but are made up by a computer programmer?
JustThinking
Member
EvidenceOfAbsence
New Member
Even if evolution were proven to be an unreliable theory (It won't, the wealth of evidence built up since the time of it's inception towers over the zero evidence of creation that has been gathered over 3000 years of human history) you'd then still have to prove that this "creation" was attributed to YOUR god. Not for example the thousands of other gods that have been conjured since the beginning of human history.
These are two gigantic steps that must be made to refute a theory that already works.
You are wasting your time. If you manage to brow beat an explaination for diversity of life on the planet, you still have to deal with abiogenesis, which in my opinion is a far bigger slap in the face to faith than evolution.
How you could possibly propose we make these steps, and then claim that you are doing it for reasonable rational reasons in an attempt to wedge your god back into a world that doesn't need it is absurd, and nothing a reasonable person could conceive.
These are two gigantic steps that must be made to refute a theory that already works.
You are wasting your time. If you manage to brow beat an explaination for diversity of life on the planet, you still have to deal with abiogenesis, which in my opinion is a far bigger slap in the face to faith than evolution.
How you could possibly propose we make these steps, and then claim that you are doing it for reasonable rational reasons in an attempt to wedge your god back into a world that doesn't need it is absurd, and nothing a reasonable person could conceive.
JustThinking
Member
OK Great ! Post the evidence that science has found
Of how life happened on earth. I'm sure there is a general agreed upon
List of facts that the scientific community has proved with evidence
Go ahead .. Lay it on us and enlighten us
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
That would be abiogenesis, not biological evolution.
The subject here is biological evolution, try and keep up.
dust1n
Zindīq
Falsely claiming material is plagiarism. You know what else? Using material from another without properly sourcing them, let alone not even mentioning that it was sourced material or that it wasn't your own.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
No doubt you imagine you have an answer to the question: "God did it."
Problem is, unless you can explain to us exactly what god is, how it works and where it came from, you have provided no answer at all - you have just given the gap in your knowledge a name, then declared that this unexplained thing is magically capable of anything.
Other posters on this forum frequently rail against science's refusal to admit supernatural explanations for phenomena, but this illustrates perfectly why it cannot. If it could, I would declare every outstanding scientific question solved by my discovery of a universal, all-powerful but undetectable force-field called johnhanksium, guaranteed to be responsible for all observed physical phenomena, and sit back to await my Nobel prize.
dust1n
Zindīq
This is just a very short abridgement of understanding: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But anyways, this, again, continues to show a complete misunderstanding of what science is. Furthermore, the assumption that anyone is going to 'drop evolution' over night and suddenly pick up the world's most annoying and ******** religion is beyond hilarious for me.
JustThinking
Member
Quote ...
Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.*
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life
Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.*
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life
JustThinking
Member
Creationists should explain exactly.. But no evolutionist - you know those with scientific testing- cannot explain simply how life got here
dust1n
Zindīq
More exposition on the rampant misunderstanding of what constitutes 'scientific' and 'evidence'.