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.
The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.What's your theory and where's your evidence?One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.
Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.
How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.
The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
Why don't you tell me? Do you believe humans were around during the time of the dinosaurs?
There is some evidence of it in fossils but non believing scientists dismiss it.
Links please.
Images
Human footprints along with dinosaur foot prints.
Human hand print with dinosaur foot print
Indian carvings in the Grand Canyon.
Errr, that could be the footprints of anything. Do you have a LINK to a valid scientific source?
What part of- There is some evidence of it in fossils but non believing scientists dismiss it did you not get?
So no there is no scientific source because they don't believe in God.
There is some evidence of it in fossils but non believing scientists dismiss it.
Links please.
Images
Human footprints along with dinosaur foot prints.
Human hand print with dinosaur foot print
Indian carvings in the Grand Canyon.
Errr, that could be the footprints of anything. Do you have a LINK to a valid scientific source?
What part of- There is some evidence of it in fossils but non believing scientists dismiss it did you not get?
So no there is no scientific source because they don't believe in God.
There is no scientific source because legends have no basis in science. Now, I think you are a very sweet and nice lady. My goal is not to "insult" you but to make you think about these things that you have just accepted as fact without any evidence at all to back it up.
The theory of evolution has been scientifically challenged many times now, and it stands on its own merits. There is plenty of evidence to back it up, hard physical evidence. The Bible??? Not so much.
The theory of evolution makes logical sense. The Bible does not make any kind of logical sense.
Links please.
Images
Human footprints along with dinosaur foot prints.
Human hand print with dinosaur foot print
Indian carvings in the Grand Canyon.
Errr, that could be the footprints of anything. Do you have a LINK to a valid scientific source?
What part of- There is some evidence of it in fossils but non believing scientists dismiss it did you not get?
So no there is no scientific source because they don't believe in God.
There is no scientific source because legends have no basis in science. Now, I think you are a very sweet and nice lady. My goal is not to "insult" you but to make you think about these things that you have just accepted as fact without any evidence at all to back it up.
The theory of evolution has been scientifically challenged many times now, and it stands on its own merits. There is plenty of evidence to back it up, hard physical evidence. The Bible??? Not so much.
The theory of evolution makes logical sense. The Bible does not make any kind of logical sense.
I think you are a nice lady too.
It does if you really read it and studied it.
You think that I have not thought of those same things?
Yes I did and there is more evidence of some type of Creator from my research.
And before you go into the creationist's thing, all Christians call God our Creator. Including our Founders.
While I was still open to believing in God I read the bible and gave Greek Orthodox and born again my full attention. I wanted very badly to believe. I just wasn't able to convince myselfOh, and my auntie is a very religious woman. She is an Episcopalian and is very involved in her church and church related activities. As a matter of fact, she went on a trip with her church group to Kosovo about 5 years ago. She brought me home some rocks which she claimed had some type of "miraculous" properties.
We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.
There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.
But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.
I'm sorry, but I can post links to prove you wrong all day long.
Human Evolution 101
All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \
Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!
All of things I posted are FROM scientists. LOL. It is backed by scientific experiments as well as DNA. There have been experiments performed in laboratories as well. Why don't you just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about here, and that you are trying to argue with experts in the field.
We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.
There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.
But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.
I'm sorry, but I can post links to prove you wrong all day long.
Human Evolution 101
All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \
Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!
All of things I posted are FROM scientists. LOL. It is backed by scientific experiments as well as DNA. There have been experiments performed in laboratories as well. Why don't you just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about here, and that you are trying to argue with experts in the field.
Well just because a person with a degree in science says something, doesn't make it true. I hate to tell you this but scientists have been wrong more than they've been right through history. All the actual science you referenced is speculation based on theories. There is no hard science that establishes this or we wouldn't be debating it.
The lab experiments performed on fruit flies for 100 years doesn't show any signs of mutations creating new enzymes or amino acids, much less new species, much less new genera of life.
While I was still open to believing in God I read the bible and gave Greek Orthodox and born again my full attention. I wanted very badly to believe. I just wasn't able to convince myselfOh, and my auntie is a very religious woman. She is an Episcopalian and is very involved in her church and church related activities. As a matter of fact, she went on a trip with her church group to Kosovo about 5 years ago. She brought me home some rocks which she claimed had some type of "miraculous" properties.
There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.
But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.
I'm sorry, but I can post links to prove you wrong all day long.
Human Evolution 101
All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \
Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!
All of things I posted are FROM scientists. LOL. It is backed by scientific experiments as well as DNA. There have been experiments performed in laboratories as well. Why don't you just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about here, and that you are trying to argue with experts in the field.
Well just because a person with a degree in science says something, doesn't make it true. I hate to tell you this but scientists have been wrong more than they've been right through history. All the actual science you referenced is speculation based on theories. There is no hard science that establishes this or we wouldn't be debating it.
The lab experiments performed on fruit flies for 100 years doesn't show any signs of mutations creating new enzymes or amino acids, much less new species, much less new genera of life.
Yup. Scientists are all wrong. The people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago are right though!
All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \
Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!
All of things I posted are FROM scientists. LOL. It is backed by scientific experiments as well as DNA. There have been experiments performed in laboratories as well. Why don't you just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about here, and that you are trying to argue with experts in the field.
Well just because a person with a degree in science says something, doesn't make it true. I hate to tell you this but scientists have been wrong more than they've been right through history. All the actual science you referenced is speculation based on theories. There is no hard science that establishes this or we wouldn't be debating it.
The lab experiments performed on fruit flies for 100 years doesn't show any signs of mutations creating new enzymes or amino acids, much less new species, much less new genera of life.
Yup. Scientists are all wrong. The people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago are right though!
Does the validity of the bible somehow make what a scientist says true? I fail to see any correlation. I didn't says scientists are all wrong. I said scientists have been wrong more than they've been right through history. Much of that has to do with the nature of science and how science continues to ask questions and not conclude.
On the subject of all living things "evolving" from a single common ancestor, there is no basis in science to support that theory. This can certainly be speculated. Experiments might suggest something... conjectures can be made based on this or that... but the definitive scientific evidence to prove this theory is not there. You and various scientists can "believe" anything you please.... but belief is faith.
Today I went to a neice's birthday party and asked these kids who go to church what they thought about evolution and they all believe in evolution.While I was still open to believing in God I read the bible and gave Greek Orthodox and born again my full attention. I wanted very badly to believe. I just wasn't able to convince myselfOh, and my auntie is a very religious woman. She is an Episcopalian and is very involved in her church and church related activities. As a matter of fact, she went on a trip with her church group to Kosovo about 5 years ago. She brought me home some rocks which she claimed had some type of "miraculous" properties.
Since I was a kid hearing these stories and beliefs, I was like "no way is this real." Lol.
I have faith the moon plays a role in our seasons and tides. But I can't prove it. Do you believe the moon effects tides? Why do you believe that when it's never been proven? Zero evidence the moon or ozone matter
All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \
Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!
All of things I posted are FROM scientists. LOL. It is backed by scientific experiments as well as DNA. There have been experiments performed in laboratories as well. Why don't you just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about here, and that you are trying to argue with experts in the field.
Well just because a person with a degree in science says something, doesn't make it true. I hate to tell you this but scientists have been wrong more than they've been right through history. All the actual science you referenced is speculation based on theories. There is no hard science that establishes this or we wouldn't be debating it.
The lab experiments performed on fruit flies for 100 years doesn't show any signs of mutations creating new enzymes or amino acids, much less new species, much less new genera of life.
Yup. Scientists are all wrong. The people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago are right though!
Does the validity of the bible somehow make what a scientist says true? I fail to see any correlation. I didn't says scientists are all wrong. I said scientists have been wrong more than they've been right through history. Much of that has to do with the nature of science and how science continues to ask questions and not conclude.
On the subject of all living things "evolving" from a single common ancestor, there is no basis in science to support that theory. This can certainly be speculated. Experiments might suggest something... conjectures can be made based on this or that... but the definitive scientific evidence to prove this theory is not there. You and various scientists can "believe" anything you please.... but belief is faith.
What's poisonous?I am fascinated by the poisonous atheist postings on a Religion related Thread.
Personally, I don't think we will know anything after we die. I don't believe in a man made god. I don't doubt a supreme creator/being but not the Abrahamic "God". I think if there was something so fuckin awesome that could have made us/world, they wouldn't be as narcissistic as the Abrahamic god. I don't think they would spiritually rape a virgin. I don't think they would send us to an eternity of fire for having a different opinion. And I damn sure think that if someone created us, they are watching us; yhey would show their faces and straighten us out instead of letting us kill each other and dwell on metaphorical bullshit.There are multiple Gods/theories but there is only one "truth" and we probably wont ever know..
except after we die? Or do you mean "ever ever"?
well then, if there IS some kind of creator, they are still allowing this to happen to us....
