Evolution... a kids fairytale

reply to post by Nosred


I wish you read the chapter in it's entirely you truly grasp what the bible scriptures you quoted truly meant instead of using Google search "how to contradict the bible" and post quotes.

Like I said you didn't truly grasp the meaning of the bible. Gen 2:18-19 was affirming what it stated in Gen 1:26. Gen 2:18 doesn't say anywhere he created animal again... but if read on you see that it goes alon with Gen 2:21-23 where God puts Adam to sleep and uses his rib to create a women....

So tell me what are you beliefs on how life combusted? Explain the impossible to me....

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Nosred

 

I wish you read the chapter in it's entirely you truly grasp what the bible scripture

I have read that chapter.

Like I said you didn't truly grasp the meaning of the bible. Gen 2:18-19 was affirming what it stated in Gen 1:26. Gen 2:18 doesn't say anywhere he created animal again... but if read on you see that it goes alon with Gen 2:21-23 where God puts Adam to sleep and uses his rib to create a women....

It says that God created the animals, then he created Adam. Then he sees that Adam is lonely, so he creates animals again? It seems that God is not sure what order he made things in. I guess six days of work does that to an omniscient and omnipotent being.

So tell me what are you beliefs on how life combusted? Explain the impossible to me....

Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Until you understand that we're going to be stuck in this circular logic merry-go-round.

reply to post by Nosred


You got a lot of reading to do, you tell me I need to do my research hahaha. Oh boy you need to yours and really grasp what it's teaching you. You couldn't even comprehend the simple verses you quoted, you thought it said something but if you read the chapter in it's entirety you'll understand why it was re-stated again in chapter 2

No we wont I can stop you in your tracks. Like I said, I was an evolutionist like you, I've read all the garbage you probably read from skepdic.com or any other site. I've compared both sides and saw there's a creator.

reply to post by samaka


Whatever dude I don't care how many imaginary friends you have, you have done nothing to disprove evolution in any way and that is what we're really arguing here. You reject evolution, an observable natural process backed up with more evidence than gravity, in favor of a magic beard man creating everything in six days.

I can not make you understand evolution, that is up to you. If you choose to keep deluding yourself with fantasies of magic bearded men and evil demons then that is your choice, just please stop trying to "debate" the fact of evolution's existence. You only end up making yourself look like even more of a fool than you did to begin with. Maybe someday you will step into the real world and leave your childish games behind but until then I bid you adieu.

reply to post by Nosred


Evolution is so flawed that many evolutionary biologist such as Michael Rose say "The tree of life is being politely buried" he even admits the whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.

Many scientist point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mamals. But what evidence really shows and I quote by evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup "what geologist of Darwin's time, and geologistof the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

au.answers.yahoo.com...

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time and many fossil paleontologist refer to this period as Cambrian explosion.

You need to look that up sir.

reply to post by samaka


Not only that, but less than 1% of the species scientists claim have existed on earth have fossil records to back up those claims. The majority of the stuff you see them talk about is speculation and hypothesis.

Fun fact, dogs spin in circles when they lay down because the ones that made a square or triangle pattern died off. See doesn't that explain that behavior and how it came to be that dogs do that?

Evolution does in fact happen. Scientists witness it occurring in the lab.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by samaka

 

Not only that, but less than 1% of the species scientists claim have existed on earth have fossil records to back up those claims.

Care to provide a source for this?


Edit: I wanted to add this since it seems to be abiogenesis the OP has a problem with rather than evolution,

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
And where do these species get the idea that they should reproduce?

Evolution has no answers as to why. The patented answer is always that the thing exists because it was beneficial. The real answers on how something did what it does are glossed over with the hope that you won't ask hard questions about origins.

If you wanted to discuss how an individual cell got to the point that it cooperated with other cells and eventually cooperated with millions of other cells as a thing we call a bird you're in too deep. And now these cells cooperate to fly? Because the ones that didn't fly died off right? Why do animals have sharp teeth, because that's an evolutionary advantage. So why don't birds shoot laser beams from their eyes? That sounds like a better evolutionary trait than just vision alone.

Nope, no real answers here. Just he patent generic it exists because it exists because it was beneficial.

I'm mesmerized by your logic. But how does what exists know what's beneficial

Anytime the government mandates *their* schools to teach something, you can safely assume its crap

Evolution, sex ed., the benefits of integration through affirmative action derived from apartheid procedures, history as we know it, sciences that change their text books ever semester, etc...

The point is, if the government backs up evolution, what else proof do you need to throw it out the window?

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Nosred

 

Many scientist point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mamals. But what evidence really shows and I quote by evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup "what geologist of Darwin's time, and geologistof the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time and many fossil paleontologist refer to this period as Cambrian explosion.

You need to look that up sir.

Congratulations on being able to plagiarize yahoo answers.

au.answers.yahoo.com...

A question to moderators: Doesn't plagiarism get you banned?

reply to post by samaka


You are right, Evolution does not work. But I arrived at that conclusion from a different angle. Let's put your arguments in suspension for just a minute, which is not to say I disagree, but purely for the sake of this conversation let us suppose.

We look at Evolution and one of the principles is that change occurs when it assists the creature in survival. Okay, so tell me how losing 40% of our body strength and 60% of our body hair, geologically overnight, would have helped us survive better in those primitive times and conditions.

The second thing is the timeline. Evolution works just fine for animals, crustaceans, insects, etc. However when you come to the timeline of man, you and I in our present forms should not be here for about another million years. I mean our primate and primitive man fore-bearers were progressing at a steady, predictable rate and then all of a sudden we appear next to primitive man and both groups coexist for a time.

Remember the search for the missing link? Well none has been found because there is no missing link, because our logical and slow progress was accelerated by something, jump started so to speak.

I know what you guys are thinking, is he gonna thump the bible next?

No, I wouldn't do that. And I won't say I have the answer but I will say that the thoughts of Zecheriah Sitchin are interesting, along with Erich Von Daniken, Alan Alford, and Robert Temple. My biggest trouble with Mr. Sitchen's works are that there is no one else to corroborate the translation. He is one of the very few who can read Ancient Sumerian and that makes trusting him a leap of faith. Don't like that, but he does make some sense.

I don't know if I am up for all the Nibiru cashing in that has been done lately either.

And then I remember a video (wasn't that well done or I would post it) where David Icke had an Illuminati phone caller who said that Zecheriah Sitchin was a reptilian shapeshifter. Pretty scary stuff kids, if you believe in Reptilian shapeshifters. Of course on the other hand David Icke did run for Parlaiment, and I remember him saying on his own website in 1999/2000 that he (David Icke) was Dr. Cameron (the head mind bender) of the Montauk Project fame.

Then there is the book Forbidden Archaeology which catalogs the anomalies of archeological finds which don't fit with the accepted model of our evolution. Batteries, figurines of spaceship looking objects, metals we still don't understand, deep mines in South America which were dug before we had steel tools. Trouble is, one of the reasons I got into history is because the things that don't make sense - to the accepted model - have always been sent to the basement of museums and left to be swallowed by dust and the human memory hole.

You have good arguments sir, and here is corroboration.

reply to post by Nosred


I didn't plagiarized crap, got my information the same sources they got theirs, no mystery behind it's widely taught actually. If you want I can show you where I got my information.

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Nosred

 

I didn't plagiarized crap, got my information the same sources they got theirs, no mystery behind it's widely taught actually. If you want I can show you where I got my information.

You practically copy and pasted what they wrote, let me compare them side by side.

You wrote:

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Nosred

 

Many scientist point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mamals. But what evidence really shows and I quote by evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup "what geologist of Darwin's time, and geologistof the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time and many fossil paleontologist refer to this period as Cambrian explosion.

You need to look that up sir.

They wrote:

Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show? "Instead of finding that gradual unfolding of life," says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is , species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." (32)

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appears so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as "the Cambrian explosion," When was the Cambrian period?

au.answers.yahoo.com...

Keep plagiarizing and you'll be banned sonny.


So much for creationists, nothing but plagiarists and liars.

reply to post by Nosred


They got it from "The Origins of Life" magazine I simply quoting as I stated and I quote

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Nosred

 

They got it from "The Origins of Life" magazine

It doesn't matter where you copied it from, it's still plagiarism.

I simply quoting as I stated and I quote

Nowhere in your post did you say you were quoting them. You were trying to take credit for something written by someone else, this is known as "plagiarism" and discredits you entirely on this site.

reply to post by Nosred


Whatever makes you happy.. I don't want to take credit for anything I can give a crap what people think of me I know what my intentions are. I'm not really keen on their WYSIWYG and +plus I'm typing from an ipad so I'm trying to keep my wording to a minimal. My agenda is to get people thinking.

reply to post by samaka


excerpt from post by samaka

Ok then so why can I find many contradicting aspects of evolution but I bet you can't even find 1 contradicting thing about the bible, that's even if you ever read and understood the bible but you strike me like aperson that swears by google and picks and chooses what he wants to hear to his own fitting of life.

See I was on your side on the evolution thing, but on this Bible thing? This is one of the subjects I have been researching for decades. I can give you lots of contradictions in the Bible and the biggest one is it's origins. But lets set the main course aside until we get the appetizer and soup out of the way.

Explain the word Elohim please. I will give you a start since I know this is not something any Christian gives any thought to. Elohim is plural for God, as in Gods. It is still in the Bible despite the many edits, adjustments, translations and versions it has gone through. What does it mean and why is it still there?

Explain Simon Magus. What is the Christian explanation. I am patient, you can wait a week until you see your minister again and ask him.

But maybe it would be better if you talked to a priest, and I will tell you why. I am re-posting an excerpt of an earlier post of my own because it is a lot of typing and I just got off work.

excerpt from one of my previous posts

Now as to the bible... (oh here we go, first thing in the morning on my third day on this site!) In the fourth century AD the emperor Constantine - a pagan Roman Emperor - made a deal with the Catholic Church. At the time the Catholic Church was a relatively smaller sect of the many, many Christian sects at the time. And at that time there was no canonized bible, just a lot of loose scriptures floating around. The various Christian sects were gaining in prominence and threatened the longevity of the then pagan Roman Empire. Constantine had the solution though.

The Deal; If the Catholic Cardinals and Archbishops would meet in Nicea and decide which books were to be included and which books were to be excluded (These books came to be known as the Apocrypha.) Rome would produce - so to speak - the first canonized bible and recognize the Catholic Church as the official church of the Roman Empire. Now most of us understand today that when someone is an editor he (they) will also make suggestions to the author for changes, and knowing that being published probably depends on agreeing to these changes, most authors will usually agree to them. In this case the authors of the various scriptures were no longer with us and this served to make the editorial process more smooth and much quicker. The end result? We now have a Bible in which almost none of Jesus teaching - what he said - are reproduced, save a few parables. The nuns in Catholic school told me that Jesus only taught in parables, but about thirty seconds consideration shows this to be highly unlikely. I mean would you drop everything and follow someone who spoke only in riddles? No one followed Nostradamus, and his quattrains were nothing but riddles. Similarly there is no record in the bible of where Jesus went between the ages of 13 and 30, though some compelling evidence exists that he went to India, and studied and taught there during that time.

But the real problems with the Bible start when you consider what the Catholics did one year after they received this Roman stamp of approval. As I said before the Catholics were a relatively small sect at the time, but once they were the official Religion of the now Holy Roman Empire the clerics set about destroying all scriptures which had been excluded. That's right, they held book burnings for centuries on end, but they didn't stop there. During the same time they hunted down and exterminated opposing Christian sects. Of course the guys in the red and black robes did not grab up the sword and take to the streets murdering non-Catholics, they simply declared the next victims to be heretical and sent the Crusaders to do it for them. This went along rather well - unless you were one who refused to convert of course - until the time came to deal with the Cathars.

In the case of the Cathars who had no weapons and kept no money for themselves, the Pope decided to send Saint Bernard - yes that's where the name of the dog breed came from - to look them over and report back. Upon returning St. Bernard reported to the Pope that this was one of the most Christian groups he had ever encountered and recommended they be left alone as they were truly doing God's work. Not to be swayed, the Pope sent the Crusaders in, however there was a problem. The Knights Templar, who had been doing the Popes (plural) dirty work in this area for centuries, refused this job. Why? Well, we will come to that.

Anyway, this was no hill for a climber, and the Pope - I keep trying to think of the Pope's name, I want to say Pope Innocent, but I don't think that is right. This is all from memory this morning; coffee before bibliography, you know - was a climber in the true sense. The Pope simply contracted another group of knights to do the job for him and this is what we know today as the Albigensian Crusade. When they arrived in the Langue Doc area of what is now Southwest France the knights found that the Cathar's neighbors - who also were not armed - thought so highly of the Cathars that they hid them away to protect them. No matter, the knights were there to do a job and they did it, they just killed everyone down to the last woman and child. Indeed, if you go to the Langue Doc region in the southwest of France even today they still maintain that Jesus wife and his children landed there shortly after the crucifixion and it was the descendants of the Magdalen and the Christ who formed not only the Cathars, but supposedly the Merovingian Dynasty which is said to be the actual bloodline of Christ.

On top of that if you read the Sumerian story entitled the Enuma Elish which predates the Bible by a couple thousand years, you will see that it is strikingly similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. So much so that it leaves the Adam and Eve version looking like the Reader's Digest Abridged version. And though I forget the name now the story of Noah is also presented 2000 years before the Bible. Noah's real name was Utnapishtam.

To be fair, it has been an age old tradition that when a new religion comes into vogue it retains some of the elements of the old faith. This has always been so, and it makes the transition easier for the flock. A look at England's attempt to remove the Christmas holiday long ago will show you the truth of this practice very clearly.

So, are you Catholic? Because you are quoting from a book that was rewritten and corrupted by some Catholics with dreams of global power. And we haven't even started on King James.

Final note, I am a Christian in that I believe in Christ, I am a Buddhist because I believe in the truth and purity of their message, and I am a Taoist because I understand the idea of the One and know it to be true. All spiritual paths lead to truth, but lies cannot. What we see in the Bible is not what Jesus taught, not if Essau was in India studying and teaching. (yeah, that was his real name.) I believe in reincarnation and think that Essau the Essene did too, and taught it, but I also believe it because in my last life I was a NAZI. No one has told me this, I just feel it - hard to explain in words. I am not a NAZI in this life, but I do have some negative karma I am working through from it, Oh, and Karma is another thing which we Christians would believe if those Da**ed Catholics had just left things well enough alone.

I also know that every time we humans know we have things all figured out, we have a rude awakening coming our way.

reply to post by samaka


We see evolution taking place all the time - bacteria and virii evolve to endure Our "antibiotics."

To say that things do not evolve is to deny the evidence We see before Us.

reply to post by samaka


We see evolution taking place all the time - bacteria and virii evolve to endure Our "antibiotics."

To say that things do not evolve is to deny the evidence We see before Us.