Leaderboard

Your account is showing up as clean now. Thank you for taking care of this.

seems I've exceeded the maximum quotes limit or screwed up the syntax so I'll try this another way. encody - "correct me if I'm wrong" not a problem. encody - "The DNA in such "similar" animals as the bat, bird, and human is (for the forearm and hand) radically different, although the basic physical design is the same." Strange, most evolution deniers like to mention that radically different animals all have very similar DNA, as a way to suggest a common designer, yet you've said it's the opposite way around. Very interesting. encody - Also, the Fossil Record?!! In terms of macroevolution, completely useless!! The fossil record tells us numerous things, for example humans are a relatively recent kind of mammal, mammals are a relatively recent kind of animal, and animals are a relatively recently kind of life form. The exact phylogenic tree that evolution predicts is mirrored in the fossil record; there were no humans around before mammals existed, there were no bunny rabbits in the cambrian period, etc, etc. All macro evolution is is a term invented by evolution deniers to dishonestly move the goal posts. once it's proven to them that live evolves, they sneakily say "but you can't prove that life keeps evolving any more than what we've witnessed." it's about as intellectually honest as saying "you can't prove that more than 200 years have ever passed because you've only seen a fraction of it." encody - http://www.detecting...ime%20Scale.jpg If you look at this, it appears to be evidence of evolution... but, the fossil record has never been completely observed. Nor will it ever be, very little of what ever lived gets fossilised, nor will we find all the fossils that do exist, but we still have many hundreds of thousands of specimens, and the picture painted unmistakeably says "life has evolved." Imagine the mona lisa - having a few small details of it missing in no way means you can't tell which painting it is. encody - Another major thing to take in mind is the Cambrian Explosion, an "explosion" of live never previously seen in any other time period, and then, all of a sudden, voilá, new explosion of life never seen before!!! BIG problem for evolutionists... The cambrian explosion was only a relatively rapid appearance of fossils from the cambrian period. Remember, the cambrian explosion refers to approx 40 million years, and life was flourishing before this period but not much of it fossilised due to lack of hard body parts, hence what appears to be an explosion only in relative terms, of how many fossils are found during and after this period. Why this any kind of problem for evolution, I'd love to know. encody - In case you haven't noticed, I don't believe in evolution. If you do, Prove Me Wrong. What is proven to you is partly up to you, and that's fine. Evolution remains a verifiable, testable, observable and undeniable fact, something which, if false, would have been incredibly easy to falsify, yet perhaps quite tellingly the only things the evolution deniers can do is perpetually encourage and spread the same tired old lies, misinformation, fallacies and ignorance, 99.99% of the time purely in defence of a religious belief which contradicts it. Now I have no problem with what anyone might believe, nor the reasons they do so, but on the topic of what is demonstrably true vs patently false, I'll get right into THAT discussion. ethanh - Louis Pasteur did experiments that proves life can only come from life – this scientific law has never been broken Firstly, very simple self replicating matter has been produced in the lab, using processes that do occur in nature. Secondly, I fail to see why not knowing how life originated, has the slightest bearing on being very able to know that life changes over time, as indeed you'd expect any self reproducing thing, anywhere. ethanh - How could life come from a big bang? Seems an unnecessarily extreme question, in any case, I don't know. Why couldn't it? ethanh - No one has found fossils of the stages between apes and humans that have been proven. If evolution is true, it would have been happening everywhere and there would have been at least one fossil to prove it. They would have already found the “Missing Link”, if it existed. Evolution is not linear, life varies, so it branches out, meaning life on earth is one large family tree, so all living things, alive or dead, are an intermediate stage between their distant ancestors and their distant descendants, should they be fortunate enough to have any. Again, this is precisely what we see in the fossil record, once there were no humans but plenty of mammals, plenty of animals but no mammals, plenty of living things but no animals, etc. As for stages between apes and humans, just as there was no humans around millions of years ago, there were none of the modern apes, but a hominid species was the ancestor of humans and apes. Think of the family tree. It may interest you to note how this misrepresentation is used to claim evolution is false. of course it's true there's no missing link between us and modern apes, that wouldn't make sense. what there IS, or rather was, is a common ancestor to us and the other modern apes. http://www.theistic-...minids2_big.jpg ethanh - If we came from a big bang, where would our sense of right and wrong come from? What is the purpose of our life? There is no purpose if we came from a big bang. I'll leave that question, it's clearly more about what you'd rather believe than what is true. Evolutionists say nothing of the sort, most Christians accept evolution. SOME atheists may say that. I personally don't think time itself is endless so nothing is eternal. either way, I fail to see what any god has directly to do with evolution, only the reasons people have for denying it. Nothing can create itself, that's an obvious paradox. But that's not what happens, a species can diversify into several other exclusive ones purely by their variations being selected for by the differing environments they find themselves in. for example, take lions vs tigers or zebras vs donkeys, it is possible for them to reproduce sometimes meaning they share a common ancestor, however it is very rare and their offspring (ligers and zonkeys) will always be infertile, which is what you'd expect of a lineage branching out into two that are no longer compatible. Firstly, again, nothing has ever created itself. Secondly, DNA was not "created." Thirdly, plenty of complex things come into being purely by well understood natural processes, eg the solar system due to gravity, crystals due to atomic properties, etc. as I said earlier, we did not evolve from apes, we evolved with apes, we have a common ancestor which was not exactly like humans or modern apes, who's lineage diversified into the species of ape alive today, us included. Evolution has "produced" DNA, "create" implies some intent to the process. No doubt DNA has not always been as complex, nor even a molecule that could be called DNA. The ancestor of DNA was probably RNA, which still exists in things like viruses, which are able to copy themselves but aren't strictly alive. Firstly, a person who believes in creation, ie a creator, does not necessarily refute evolution. Secondly, since you brought up popularity - of scientists accepting or denying evolution, there are more scientists called Steve who accept evolution, than there are scientists across the world who deny it. Ultimately though, how many people accept or deny it, has nothing directly to do with it's validity. I have, it's a constant source of amusement for the most part, as is the observation that folks clearly dig up the same old tripe there and post it on various forums, unaware that it's been pulled apart a thousand times before on other forums. You'd think people getting their info from there would want to prevent the inevitable subsequent embarassment by googling their facts first, but cleary for the majority it's about wanting evolution to be false, not about discovering what is true. I know it sounds arrogant but I do strongly advise anyone refuting evolution to decide which it is they want more; for evolution to be false, or to discover what is true. Persisiting in denying evolution publicly will almost guarantee you embarassing yourself more and more. For the intellectually honest evolution denier, www.talkorigins.org would be a good place to test creationist site claims on. I have no desire to step on peoples beliefs, but since we're discussing "is evolution real?", that shouldn't be a problem.