Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, yet nowhere do you answer the question. I am not asking why some giraffes have shorter necks than others. I want you to explain how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.

I don't know exactly how but I could provide a scenario that created other species, will that do?

Imagine the short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe inhabiting an valley that, due to volcanic eruptions becomes isolated from the others of its kind. The valley dries out and the animals that are taller can reach more food and survive more often. Over thousands of years the process continues until that short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe has become the giraffe we know today. Now the volcano erodes and once-isolated giraffe population spreads out and encounters their ancestors, still short-necked, short-legged, and forest-dwelling. The two population will not interbreed and are now two distinct species.

Each time you end up starting with a giraffe and telling me how it adapted to its environment. You have not yet explained how it evolved from a non giraffe.

When I said "short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe" how did you understand that to be a giraffe?

This is how it might have looked. Is this a giraffe to you? It wouldn't interbreed with a modern giraffe and would be considered a separate species.
160px-Okapia_johnstoni_-Marwell_Wildlife%2C_Hampshire%2C_England-8a.jpg


If you object to the biological definition of a species please share yours.
 
Last edited:
your clusters don't reproduce multicelled organisms either sexually or asexually.....

Don't buy it. A distinction without a difference.

obviously its a difference.....your clusters don't reproduce themselves at all......single celled organisms reproducing single celled organisms are not multicellular organisms......

Obviously its a difference because your faith says it has to be. I'm not surprised you refuse to see the transitional nature of this organism. Well you've been presented evidence whether you choose to admit it or not. And that is alot more than any creationist has ever been able to provide to me.
 
you do realize you are nothing but a false sayer.....


you should be getting ready for the end of the world right?

matthew 24: 36

you are a charlton at best
 
you do realize you are nothing but a false sayer.....


you should be getting ready for the end of the world right?

matthew 24: 36

you are a charlton at best

Bones are you still pestering the Christians?

We are all preparing for the end of this world. Each may have a different description or definition of which world we are speaking about though.
 
you do realize you are nothing but a false sayer.....


you should be getting ready for the end of the world right?

matthew 24: 36

you are a charlton at best

Bones are you still pestering the Christians?

We are all preparing for the end of this world. Each may have a different description or definition of which world we are speaking about though.


yes i still pester them...especially when they dont have a clue what the bible says....

now you and i both know that no one knows the end time......not even the angels in heaven....why cause we read the bible.....i wished they would....

look busy jesus is coming!
 
Don't buy it. A distinction without a difference.

obviously its a difference.....your clusters don't reproduce themselves at all......single celled organisms reproducing single celled organisms are not multicellular organisms......

Obviously its a difference because your faith says it has to be. I'm not surprised you refuse to see the transitional nature of this organism. Well you've been presented evidence whether you choose to admit it or not. And that is alot more than any creationist has ever been able to provide to me.
If postMP has any offspring, wouldn't that prove that the single cell in his brain can produce a multi-cellular organism? :dunno:
 
Don't buy it. A distinction without a difference.

obviously its a difference.....your clusters don't reproduce themselves at all......single celled organisms reproducing single celled organisms are not multicellular organisms......

Obviously its a difference because your faith says it has to be.

not true.....it is science that tells me the single celled organisms which cluster together only reproduce other single celled organisms.......it is YOUR faith that tells you that this is close enough to "multicelled" to constitute proof of evolution from single celled to multicelled......
 
obviously its a difference.....your clusters don't reproduce themselves at all......single celled organisms reproducing single celled organisms are not multicellular organisms......

Obviously its a difference because your faith says it has to be. I'm not surprised you refuse to see the transitional nature of this organism. Well you've been presented evidence whether you choose to admit it or not. And that is alot more than any creationist has ever been able to provide to me.
If postMP has any offspring, wouldn't that prove that the single cell in his brain can produce a multi-cellular organism? :dunno:

yet again you lack proof.....both my children are adopted.....
 
obviously its a difference.....your clusters don't reproduce themselves at all......single celled organisms reproducing single celled organisms are not multicellular organisms......

Obviously its a difference because your faith says it has to be.

not true.....it is science that tells me the single celled organisms which cluster together only reproduce other single celled organisms.......it is YOUR faith that tells you that this is close enough to "multicelled" to constitute proof of evolution from single celled to multicelled......

Not proof of evolution but evidence of how the change from single celled to multicelled organisms may have occurred. And how small a step it really was.
 
Yes, they teach aeronautical engineering at universities but "that does not mean it is true".

Amazing the ignorance of the religious wrong.
 
Obviously its a difference because your faith says it has to be.

not true.....it is science that tells me the single celled organisms which cluster together only reproduce other single celled organisms.......it is YOUR faith that tells you that this is close enough to "multicelled" to constitute proof of evolution from single celled to multicelled......

Not proof of evolution but evidence of how the change from single celled to multicelled organisms may have occurred. And how small a step it really was.

so the new scientific method is just "it may have occurred"?......how far "science" has fallen......
 
Not proof of evolution but evidence of how the change from single celled to multicelled organisms may have occurred. And how small a step it really was.

so the new scientific method is just "it may have occurred"?......how far "science" has fallen......

Certainly the scientific method is less satisfying than religion. Religion gives answers in lieu of evidence, science only provides theories that may or may not be true based on accumulated evidence. If the evidence is lacking the theory must await judgement. In science you often get an unsatisfying "we don't know" while religion provides the reassuring "because God wanted it that way".
 
So of the thousands of accepted theories out there in the world scientists PICKED ONE, JUST ONE, to put out there that they KNOW is false yet they offer it as fact anyway.
That is what the religious right claims.
Anyone that claims that is true is a damn fool.
Evolution is considered as fact because it has stood up to FAR MORE rigor than any other scientific theory in the history of man.
 
So of the thousands of accepted theories out there in the world scientists PICKED ONE, JUST ONE, to put out there that they KNOW is false yet they offer it as fact anyway.
That is what the religious right claims.
Anyone that claims that is true is a damn fool.
Evolution is considered as fact because it has stood up to FAR MORE rigor than any other scientific theory in the history of man.

thousands of accepted theories

So tell us Old Buddy - what are a few of these "thousands of accepted theories" regarding how life on Earth came to be what it is. I can only think of two Creationism and Evolution
 
some are, some aren't........has one ever evolved into the other in a lab experiment?.....seems like a prime opportunity for you to obtain the proof you are lacking.....

I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian. Then we had 2 children who are both vegetarians. That's an evolution towards a healthier lifestyle, and now our branch of our family trees has changed/mutated/evolved into vegetarians. Pretty simple to understand really.

But you are still human beings.

I hope.:eusa_shifty:
It's still evolution.
 
I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian. Then we had 2 children who are both vegetarians. That's an evolution towards a healthier lifestyle, and now our branch of our family trees has changed/mutated/evolved into vegetarians. Pretty simple to understand really.

But you are still human beings.

I hope.:eusa_shifty:
It's still evolution.

YES!!! EVERYONE KNOWS THERE IS ""MICRO"" evolution but MACRO evolution is pure BUNK theory of ignorant,blinded,sin loving little man TRYING TO RUN FROM GOD!!!
 
So of the thousands of accepted theories out there in the world scientists PICKED ONE, JUST ONE, to put out there that they KNOW is false yet they offer it as fact anyway.
That is what the religious right claims.
Anyone that claims that is true is a damn fool.
Evolution is considered as fact because it has stood up to FAR MORE rigor than any other scientific theory in the history of man.

actually I can think of two.....abiogenesis and human beings evolving from single celled organisms......and to be honest, if you think either of those is "fact" you're the biggest fool around......because neither has EVER, fucking EVER been subjected to any rigor......
 

Forum List

Back
Top