Spirituality
26 Feb 14
01 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThose are nothing but opinion pieces. Otherwise there would be papers in scientific journals refuting the evidence of evolution.
There is a lot of evidence proving Darwin's theory of evolution wrong. Here is just a couple references and no videos either for those that don't like them.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/
http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html
They have all been soundly refuted decades ago.
You also are fond of re-issuing the old Piltdown man hoax like that legitimizes the anti evolution frothing at the mouth young Earth creationists.
You have brought up the Piltdown man at least 5 times as some kind of evidence against evolution despite the fact it came from a time 2 centuries back.
You use ANYTHING you can find to weaponize science to try to refute your creationist buddy's cock and bull stories about a 6000 year old Earth.
Tell that to the Aborigines who have histories, verbal histories, going back 12,000 years or more.
We have shown you arguments from several different directions about the age of the Earth and you just brush all that off like water off a duck.
You remain an anachronism in an anachronistic country. Who needs the Taliban when we have people like you who would LOVE to lord it over EVERYONE on the planet.
You, in your paranoia, rail against the coming onslaught of Islam.
We rail against the coming and PRESENT onslaught of the creationist bullshyte artists who would FORCE creationism down our throats if given half a chance, as proven by all the law suites being brought against schools for daring to teach the truth where you and your sicko buddies want to tear down 200 years of scientific progress and install creationism as THE standard for young growing minds.
That would be the straw that kills the American so-called education system. If you think it is bad now, watch what happens if the creationist asssholes take over education. It would be time to move to Canada where they actually believe in freedom.
01 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseDid you read this part?
Those are nothing but opinion pieces. Otherwise there would be papers in scientific journals refuting the evidence of evolution.
They have all been soundly refuted decades ago.
You also are fond of re-issuing the old Piltdown man hoax like that legitimizes the anti evolution frothing at the mouth young Earth creationists.
You have brought up the P ...[text shortened]... take over education. It would be time to move to Canada where they actually believe in freedom.
In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."
Nonetheless, they found that:
•The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.
•The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.
Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.
The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.
This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.
But apes do not have any "gene generating system."
Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."
This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.
This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible.
How do you account for that?
01 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsInteresting facts, RJH, very interesting. I'm glad you showed us!
Did you read this part?
[b]In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all ...[text shortened]... VIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible.
How do you account for that?[/b]
But, as far as I know, Nature is a scientific magazine who definitely is pro-evolution. So I'm sure there is a good explanation. I think I know the explanation, but I'm not sure that you have the scientific background to understand it.
Your explanation, however, would be interesting. Why did the marvelous intelligent designer make this difference? Doesn't seem very intelligent to me. Perhaps is not so intelligent after all.
But, still, you go off-topic, thus hi-jacking your own thread. You have been proven you falled into a scam, you belived the satire to be true, yet you don not just abandone the thread. Funny. But hi-jacking is only what others do, never you, right?
01 Mar 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe good explanation is that "ape to human evolution" is impossible.
Interesting facts, RJH, very interesting. I'm glad you showed us!
But, as far as I know, Nature is a scientific magazine who definitely is pro-evolution. So I'm sure there is a good explanation. I think I know the explanation, but I'm not sure that you have the scientific background to understand it.
Your explanation, however, would be interesting. ...[text shortened]... on not just abandone the thread. Funny. But hi-jacking is only what others do, never you, right?
01 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou persist in knocking over straw men. No one is claiming that apes evolved into humans.
The good explanation is that "ape to human evolution" is impossible.
The claim is that apes and humans had a common ancestor, now extinct, and that apes and humans diverged from that common ancestor. THIS is what explains their partially similar and partially divergent DNA: the similar DNA goes back to the common ancestor, the divergent DNA is what EVOLVED after the branches separated. Why? because apes adapted to a different set of conditions and stresses than humans.
Furthermore, evolution theory does not purport to explain how life got started in the first place. It purports to explain how diversification occurs, GIVEN that life was here some time ago. How long ago is a matter still under investigation. How it got started in the first place is another issue.
01 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is not an explanation, and it is very far from good!
The good explanation is that "ape to human evolution" is impossible.
I am no great fan of Richard Dawkins, but he was spot-on when he said that the most common argument of anti-evolutionists, is the "Argument from Incredulity!"
" Me develop from an ape? Nah, maybe you but not me!"
😕
01 Mar 14
Originally posted by CalJustI developed from man and woman, which were created by God in His image. There was no evilution from any other creature involved.
That is not an explanation, and it is very far from good!
I am no great fan of Richard Dawkins, but he was spot-on when he said that the most common argument of anti-evolutionists, is the "Argument from Incredulity!"
" Me develop from an ape? Nah, maybe you but not me!"
😕
01 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it's just you and your demons talking. You are not even a christian.
My opinion is based both on biblical history and proven science.
Originally posted by RJHinds
I developed from man and woman, which were created by God in His image. There was no evilution from any other creature involved.
01 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, you know. And you are wrong. You believe in evilution. And believe me, evilution is wrong. It is an invention of the creationists.
The information encoded in the DNA proves my point. You don't know where that information came from, but I do.
02 Mar 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are wrong for I do not believe in evilution. I am always speaking against and giving evidence that refutes evilution. Dinosaur bones are not millions of years old and fish did not evolve into amphibians or reptiles did not evolve into birds, etc.
Yes, you know. And you are wrong. You believe in evilution. And believe me, evilution is wrong. It is an invention of the creationists.