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.
As with every election and especially a presidential election, all candidates are asked their thoughts on evolution. I believe the liberal MSM passed on asking that question to Obama (I wonder why?) but anyway, Rick Perry was asked the question and he gave a lengthy answer. How do you think his response was?
Rick Perry Answers the Dreaded "Evolution" Question - Evolution News & Views
His Answer:
"There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn't happen by accident and a creator put this in place. Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I'm not going to tell you that I've got the answers to that. I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there's enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory."
Will his evangelical base accept this answer as good enough?
Here is another source;
PERRY SEES "HOLES" IN "THEORY" OF EVOLUTION
Given the number of people on this thread who don't understand science, I'm amazed the United States of America became the first culture to put a man on the Moon......but it does explain why we haven't been back since 1972.
The ol bate and switch. Let's take an absurd theory and compare it to one of our many accomplishments. Let's not confuse real scientists with ones that give in to fantasy.
Pretty much.
How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?
So how did life begin on this planet ?
I think his comment says more about him being a politician than a lack of scientific knowledge.
His knowledge and proposals on foreign policy, our military and the global economy are flawed and will only result in war over the long term with many good Americans being killed or harmed in the process.
Will result in war over the long term with many good americans being harmed or killed?
What the hell do you think is going on right now? We're in the middle of a decade long war with no end in sight and tons of americans have been killed/harmed. The exact thing you fear is happening now, I think his policy would result in the opposite.
Isolationist policies prevented us from entering both WWI and WWII sooner. If we'd been involved in WWI sooner, then perhaps we would have had a greater influence on the Treaty of Versailles thereby preventing WWII. If we'd been involved in WWII from the get-go, then perhaps we could have nipped most of the fighting in the bud before becoming involved in a war which cost the United States over 400,000 dead heroes.
Isolationism is an ignorant way to handle foreign policy. President Bush was right on that score, "Better to fight them over there than fight them over here".
Disagreed about WWI and the idea that we didn't have an Isolationist Policy, more properly known as "non-interventionism": United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWe should've never been in WWI, entering it at all was a mistake and we didn't have an isolationist policy before that either and Paul doesn't advocate for one.
It's also a Straw Man argument since I said nothing about Iraq and Libya.Saying Paul wants an isolationist policy is ignorant. Saying we need to blow up Iraq and Libya to be safe here isn't ignorant, it's downright insane.
I was disheartened to hear Dr. Paul say he doesn't "believe" in the scientific fact of evolution, but I must admit the biggest issues for me are budgets/economy/taxes/foreign policy and I have total faith in his knowledge in those areas.
So he can still suck at Biology 101 and be a good prez, so I can't criticize others for voting for science deniers.
people who try to debunk evolution on the internets make me
look, macro=evolution has never been observed and or documented there is nothing to debunk but vivid imaginations so that can be bebunked on the internet.
If it didn't occur, how did species appear millions of years apart? Gradualism is obviously not the way things work, hence "punctuated equilibrium" was postulated as the mechanism. The assumption is that numbers were initially very small making fossils hard to find, until such time as the changes created an advantage over the old form or allowed them to enter a new environmental niche with a consequent explosion in numbers. It can take many, many generations before a mutation in a single individual spreads around the population enough to see the differences in the fossil record.
I believe God created all life on earth. Exactly how the process developed, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. But I'm confident life didn't originate as evolutionist have theorized.
How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?
It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.
Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?
No one said that humans have stopped evolving. As for observation, that would be impossible on a human timescale. We don't live long enough to see the changes. As a matter of fact, the time involved is so long that, we couldn't see the changes even if one had lived for the entire length of human history.
Given the number of people on this thread who don't understand science, I'm amazed the United States of America became the first culture to put a man on the Moon......but it does explain why we haven't been back since 1972.
Perhaps the reason we haven't been back is because there is nothing there.
What a coincidence! Many Europeans in the Flat Earth Society said the same thing about the New World in the 1500s.
Pretty much.
How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?
So how did life begin on this planet ?
Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.
The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?
Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.
Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.
All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules⦠all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.
Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.
I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.
It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.
There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.
Explain?
Geeze guys I can't keep up with this thread anymore......lol
It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.
Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?
No one said that humans have stopped evolving. As for observation, that would be impossible on a human timescale. We don't live long enough to see the changes. As a matter of fact, the time involved is so long that, we couldn't see the changes even if one had lived for the entire length of human history.
Typical answer.
In other words evolution is still occurring yet there's no physical evidence of it. So we just have to take you at your word.
As I've pointed out, objective evolutionist, paleontologist etc....have admitted that there are no transitional fossils that supports evolution.
The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966
John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.
"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)
Given the number of people on this thread who don't understand science, I'm amazed the United States of America became the first culture to put a man on the Moon......but it does explain why we haven't been back since 1972.
The ol bate and switch. Let's take an absurd theory and compare it to one of our many accomplishments. Let's not confuse real scientists with ones that give in to fantasy.
Is that directed at me? What is the fantasy? Evolution?
How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?
So how did life begin on this planet ?
I believe God created all life on earth. Exactly how the process developed, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. But I'm confident life didn't originate as evolutionist have theorized.
How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?
So how did life begin on this planet ?
Nobody knows for sure, so it must've been magic.
look, macro=evolution has never been observed and or documented there is nothing to debunk but vivid imaginations so that can be bebunked on the internet.
If it didn't occur, how did species appear millions of years apart? Gradualism is obviously not the way things work, hence "punctuated equilibrium" was postulated as the mechanism. The assumption is that numbers were initially very small making fossils hard to find, until such time as the changes created an advantage over the old form or allowed them to enter a new environmental niche with a consequent explosion in numbers. It can take many, many generations before a mutation in a single individual spreads around the population enough to see the differences in the fossil record.
Nice theory, but a mutation has a very little chance surviving in the genepool because of Natural Selection. I have posted this many times why do i need to keep repeating myself ? if i am wrong show otherwise.
Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.
The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?
Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.
Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.
All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules⦠all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.
Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.
I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.
It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.
There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.
Explain?
You need to do some research before posting stuff like this. The evolution of the eye is EASILY explained. It starts with light sensesitive cells. Then a cup forms to improve directionality of sensation. That's just the start. For more info go to:
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
