Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species?
They do not kill off the unchanged species, at least not directly. But the offspring of the unchanged species has a VERY VERY slightly lower chance of surviving. Or they produce slightly less offspring. Over time (thousand generations) these factors lead to a complete replacement of the original species with the more advanced ones.
DNA just spontaneously generated itself.
No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
Tell me what creationist were wrong about two thousand years ago ?
The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.Your side are the ones making corrections while the bible continues to be proven out as evidence is gathered.
Tell me what creationist were wrong about two thousand years ago ?
The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.Your side are the ones making corrections while the bible continues to be proven out as evidence is gathered.
Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.Tell me what creationist were wrong about two thousand years ago ?
The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.Your side are the ones making corrections while the bible continues to be proven out as evidence is gathered.
I'm waiting for you to back your claim.
A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.
You certainly do.
Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.
I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.
No. My posts refute the manifestly dumbass assertions you and your retarded tribe post as refutations of the Theory of Evolution.A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.
If you think your posts refute ID, you are more delusional than I previously thought.
IronyLOLs!Loki doesn't think anything. One glimpse at his posts should tell you, it's all about posturing.
Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions..
This is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call numerous holes being punched in the theory by modern scientific discoveries progression.
The last two words here aptly describe your total inability to grasp the sarcastic point I was making about Natural Selection, i.e., the assertion by Darwinists it is some personified force capable of miracles. I was just regurgitating the idiotic claims of Darwinists regarding NS.First, natural selection is not an intelligence. It does not detect anything. It does not throw things away or keep anything. It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not. It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence. To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection. To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.
Since when is a larger brain a cosmetic change??? Complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory? Really. So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone? Come on man, are you that dense?? According to TOE, even though we don't have any evidence of this transitional hominid, are you claiming there were no intermediate steps? I think in your assertion of my so called foolishness and ignorance, someone other than me has been revealed as the real fool.
Skhul and Qafzeh hominids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is an article that avoids the ASSumptive language of you clowns here and correctly uses terms like "may have" and "probably", since all the things you all state as fact can't be proven by the evidence at hand.
human species, origins of
You can deny the Bible, but don't you think it odd it has not really been contradicted by science? I think you will find that very few Christians subscribe to the "young earth" theory. Moses is the widely accepted author of Genesis. The Creation story was more than likely handed down by the oral tradition for thousands of years (maybe even 200,000 years) and Moses was just the first guy to write the stories passed down by the elders down on paper...
"Analysis of DNA in recent human populations suggests that H. sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa from a single female ancestor, Eve."
The whole lucy wishful thinking fiasco makes me wonder if an marterialistic paleontologists can be trusted not to fill in the blanks with info that supports their dying theory.
THE ERRORS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BOOKLET
Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.
Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.
Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?
You are missing the point. I know that the Bible -- or, rather, its loose enough interpretation -- can explain Neanderthals and anything else we know about the world around us. And not a long time ago it was the best explanation -- but not anymore.
The goal of the Theory of Evolution is to explain how the humans first appeared on this planet without involving God and his miracles. And it has been hugely successful at that -- and in particular thanks to finding the remains of Neanderthals and other transitional species. And because of the success of the Theory of Evolution we have more reasons to believe that the Bible is not a divine gift, but a collections of myth and stories written by ancient people.
That is the problem,your presuppositions eliminate the possibility of the designer.
DNA just spontaneously generated itself.
No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
Prove it.
how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species?
They do not kill off the unchanged species, at least not directly. But the offspring of the unchanged species has a VERY VERY slightly lower chance of surviving. Or they produce slightly less offspring. Over time (thousand generations) these factors lead to a complete replacement of the original species with the more advanced ones.
You still don't get it. Transitional organisms should have been better adapted to the enviornment if they were to pass on their traits ,get it ?
So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present
