"upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."
Options
Comments
-
Omfg... NO! That is NOT "what evolution teaches". You're either (A) a ? /simpleton(which you don't strike me as, but clearly I could be wrong), (B) you had THE worst science teachers in existence, or (C) you just made that silly ? up in your head to help convince YOURSELF evolution isn't true (likely... In which case I have no choice but to refer you back to option A)DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »The chicken evolving into a shark is exactly what evolution teaches. I can't belive people actually believe that nonsense. According to evolution every living organism came from a slime pit, some ancient primordial ooze. Last time I checked all living creatures returned to dust, not some ooze. So yeah, thanks for comprehending my statment.
Evolution says nothing about one species of animal transforming completely into another species. A dog can't evolve into a cat, but it can turn evolve into a different type of dog to better adapt to it's surroundings (thicker fur, more fat under it's skin for colder climates, for example)
Also... I guess when your father busted that nut that was to become you, he shot you out in a cloud of dust, huh? And not that ooze-like sperm that everyone else comes from...
Please don't insult our (and yours, for that matter) intelligence with that ? . -
Maybe this will help you understand the "primordial ooze" of evolution
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism?wasRedirected=true
Here is an evolutionary tree (starting from unicellular organisms)
A chicken cannot just jump into the ocean and "evolve" into a shark. That's not how evolution works. Smh @ lookin at a can of tuna thinking you had evolution figured out
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »The chicken evolving into a shark is exactly what evolution teaches. I can't belive people actually believe that nonsense. According to evolution every living organism came from a slime pit, some ancient primordial ooze. Last time I checked all living creatures returned to dust, not some ooze. So yeah, thanks for comprehending my statment.
And this is why I nominated you as funniest poster.
-
Evolution says nothing about one species of animal transforming completely into another species.
So taking the statement that you just said above, where does evolution stand in regards to humans? What did human beings evolve from? Because from what I understand, which is nothing but utter non-sense, humans evolved from "ape-like" creatures.
So how can you state what you said above? I mean there are more holes in that statment than swiss cheese.
How can you say that my friend? I mean how?
Evolution says that all the species, extinct and living, evolved from some ancient primordial ooze. That means that everything that has lived evolved from some other type of organism. So how can the statement that you stated be true?
You might want to look up macro-evolution and then come and talk to me my friend. ? bless. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »So taking the statement that you just said above, where does evolution stand in regards to humans? What did human beings evolve from? Because from what I understand, which is nothing but utter non-sense, humans evolved from "ape-like" creatures.
So how can you state what you said above? I mean there are more holes in that statment than swiss cheese.
How can you say that my friend? I mean how?
Evolution says that all the species, extinct and living, evolved from some ancient primordial ooze. That means that everything that has lived evolved from some other type of organism. So how can the statement that you stated be true?
You might want to look up macro-evolution and then come and talk to me my friend. ? bless.
An ape-like creature evolving into a human is different from say a chicken evolving into a shark(dumb) because for one thing a shark is already a preexisting creature. Prior to the evolution humans did not exist. How is this hard to grasp?
Evolved from and transformed to are two different things. There are intermediary steps that occur over time. Evolution is an advancement into a new form not a sidestep transformation into another totally unrelated preexisting creature. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »So taking the statement that you just said above, where does evolution stand in regards to humans? What did human beings evolve from? Because from what I understand, which is nothing but utter non-sense, humans evolved from "ape-like" creatures.
So how can you state what you said above? I mean there are more holes in that statment than swiss cheese.
How can you say that my friend? I mean how?
Evolution says that all the species, extinct and living, evolved from some ancient primordial ooze. That means that everything that has lived evolved from some other type of organism. So how can the statement that you stated be true?
You might want to look up macro-evolution and then come and talk to me my friend. ? bless.
Evolution is a long process to get from one species to a completely separate one. The initial species that the new species evolves from doesn't just morph into it's evolved ascendant. The ascended species is and offshoot of the main species that ended up living in a different environment from it's origns. So if you wanted your chicken to turn into a shark, not only would it take the chicken to have to live and survive in a shark inhabitable environment, but it would also take millions of years of extremely slow mutations from birth after birth after birth until eventually, the chicken's dna, due to survival of the fittest and those small mutated birthed chickens having features that best suit the animal for surviving in that environment, eventually growing slowly over time, full functional gills and dorsal fin. It might not look exactly like a modern shark, but it would probably be a something like a chicken shark.... shark with a sharp beak/mouth like an octopus....
Evolution does not work how you are trying to make it sound. A monkey is not going to give birth to a full blown human.... IF monkeys were ever to evolve into a humanoid sentient being... for one they would probably end up looking like the apes on the movie planet of the apes.... especially way before they ended up looking like us... if the environment dictated the need for them to appear like us at all.... -
Abrupt transformations from one biologic system to another, for example the passing of life from water into land or the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, are rare. Few major biological types have emerged during the evolutionary history of life and most of them survive till today. When lifeforms take such giant leaps, they meet little to no competition and are able to exploit a plethora of available niches, following a pattern of adaptive radiation. This can lead to convergent evolution, where unrelated populations display similar adaptations.[4]
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one*– the only difference between them is of time and scale.
Misuse
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
3] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[14][15]
You were saying?
Lmao @ "look up macroevolution". You don't even understand it yourself. -
An ape-like creature evolving into a human is different from say a chicken evolving into a shark(dumb) because for one thing a shark is already a preexisting creature. Prior to the evolution humans did not exist. How is this hard to grasp?
Evolved from and transformed to are two different things. There are intermediary steps that occur over time. Evolution is an advancement into a new form not a sidestep transformation into another totally unrelated preexisting creature.
It's no different because its all BS. And it's not hard to grasp because there isnt anything to grasp. Macro-evolution has never been observed, but yet those who deny ? believe it happend. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness because their deeds are evil. Only fools believe in evolution. And thats why only fools say there is no ? . -
Evolution is a long process to get from one species to a completely separate one. The initial species that the new species evolves from doesn't just morph into it's evolved ascendant. The ascended species is and offshoot of the main species that ended up living in a different environment from it's origns. So if you wanted your chicken to turn into a shark, not only would it take the chicken to have to live and survive in a shark inhabitable environment, but it would also take millions of years of extremely slow mutations from birth after birth after birth until eventually, the chicken's dna, due to survival of the fittest and those small mutated birthed chickens having features that best suit the animal for surviving in that environment, eventually growing slowly over time, full functional gills and dorsal fin. It might not look exactly like a modern shark, but it would probably be a something like a chicken shark.... shark with a sharp beak/mouth like an octopus....
Evolution does not work how you are trying to make it sound. A monkey is not going to give birth to a full blown human.... IF monkeys were ever to evolve into a humanoid sentient being... for one they would probably end up looking like the apes on the movie planet of the apes.... especially way before they ended up looking like us... if the environment dictated the need for them to appear like us at all....
So you believe that macro-evolution has and is currently taking place? Like this diagram illustrates?
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »It's no different because its all BS. And it's not hard to grasp because there isnt anything to grasp. Macro-evolution has never been observed, but yet those who deny ? believe it happend. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness because their deeds are evil. Only fools believe in evolution. And thats why only fools say there is no ? . IMO
You left something out there, buddy. -
Abrupt transformations from one biologic system to another, for example the passing of life from water into land or the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, are rare. Few major biological types have emerged during the evolutionary history of life and most of them survive till today. When lifeforms take such giant leaps, they meet little to no competition and are able to exploit a plethora of available niches, following a pattern of adaptive radiation. This can lead to convergent evolution, where unrelated populations display similar adaptations.[4]
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one*– the only difference between them is of time and scale.
Misuse
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
3] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[14][15]
You were saying?
Lmao @ "look up macroevolution". You don't even understand it yourself.
What you just posted bolsters what I said previously. It's blind faith. Nobody has seen 1 species change into another species because it supposedly takes "millions of years". But rather, what has been observed in labs is nothing more than micro-evolution. Nothing spectacular my friend. So again, evolution is bogus. It takes more faith to believe in that garbage than it does to believe in the living and true ? . -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »So you believe that macro-evolution has and is currently taking place? Like this diagram illustrates?
Correct, but that picture only demonstrates one branch of unlimited possible evolutionary processes... which is determined based upon what environment the initial species in said picture decides to migrate to. In which another case, the initial species can still remain what it is if it remains in the environment it needs in order to remain what it is, while another group of the same species migrates to a different environment. Basically, you're thinking that we have no choice but to evolve into different species, when that's not the case. If our environment does not change, then we will not change either. But as you know, the Earth is constantly changing, and the earth has so many different types of environments and habitats. THIS is how we can observe, theorize and study evolution. -
'''''''''' -
You left something out there, buddy.
I'm quoting ? my friend.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no ? . They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1
"The wrath of ? is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." Romans 1:18 -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »I'm quoting ? my friend.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no ? . They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1
"The wrath of ? is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." Romans 1:18
lol Who gave you the bible? I bet another man did. I highly doubt the clouds opened up and down floated the bible in a bright iluminating light of holiness right at your front door step. If that was the case in how everyone recieved the bible... I would believe in your ? . But I will not just believe what some other man told me without some sort of thought process involved or evidence of said claim....DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »So again, evolution is bogus. It takes more faith to believe in that garbage than it does to believe in the living and true ? .
If we believed in evolution based on faith... we would belive in your illogical and riduclous description of how evolution works. lol You're hilarious.
Also, what living ? ? The ? that only lives in a book? lol come on bro.... -
Correct, but that picture only demonstrates one branch of unlimited possible evolutionary processes... which is determined based upon what environment the initial species in said picture decides to migrate to. In which another case, the initial species can still remain what it is if it remains in the environment it needs in order to remain what it is, while another group of the same species migrates to a different environment. Basically, you're thinking that we have no choice but to evolve into different species, when that's not the case. If our environment does not change, then we will not change either. But as you know, the Earth is constantly changing, and the earth has so many different types of environments and habitats. THIS is how we can observe, theorize and study evolution.
So where are the missing links? Billions and billions and billions of years of history (supposedly) and no missing link can be found in the fossil record? No iron clad evidence which 100% supports this theory can be found in the fossil record? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Cero. 0. I mean it's utterly ridiculous. I mean we can find every type of dinosaur bone, but yet no missing link to any creature, let alone humans. It's ridiculous Chike. I mean good grief, you got a brain.
By the way, do you mind telling me why humans evolved to have a mind that could reason and understand that there is a ? , while animals didn't? -
lol Who gave you the bible? I bet another man did. I highly doubt the clouds opened up and down floated the bible in a bright iluminating light of holiness right at your front door step. If that was the case in how everyone recieved the bible... I would believe in your ? . But I will not just believe what some other man told me without some sort of thought process involved or evidence of said claim....
Evidence? It's all around you my brother. All you have to do is open up your eyes to see. ? bless. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »So where are the missing links? Billions and billions and billions of years of history (supposedly) and no missing link can be found in the fossil record? No iron clad evidence which 100% supports this theory can be found in the fossil record? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Cero. 0. I mean it's utterly ridiculous. I mean we can find every type of dinosaur bone, but yet no missing link to any creature, let alone humans. It's ridiculous Chike. I mean good grief, you got a brain.
What missing link? It's called theorizing based on the laws of physics lol Mathematics? Ever heard ot it? It's like counting... Ever taken an IQ test? What's the next number in this sequence? 1,2,4,8,(?) <~ based on logic the next number is 16. It's not hard to fill in the missing link with logic based on the info we do have.DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »By the way, do you mind telling me why humans evolved to have a mind that could reason and understand that there is a ? , while animals didn't?
Sure. Our primitive ancestors began using tools in order to survive. In order to continue to survive based on migrating to different areas and locations as well as even diet, they had to think of new ways to improve upon their tool making techniques. Whether it be for gathering food or hunting or building shelter etc..... Well as you know from recent history, humans are always improving upon ideas and inventions and always discovering new information about the universe.
The ? concept came from a lack of understand how the universe operates, yet being aware that certain things happen to themselves, whether they realise what is happening or not. Like breathing air for instance.... animals aren't aware that breathing air truly keeps them alive, even though their bodies instinctively cause them them to panic if they are suffocating...that is a subconscious kicking into survival mode... that's how life operates. Humans slowly started becoming aware of these things... the environment permitted our brains to grow intelligent enough to realize this. But of course, without the knowledge that air is made of tiny molecules that our bodies need in order to live... they would make up a concept that would make sense to them so that it would make them feel comfortable. "Oh, the spirit of '? ' is breathing life into us!" Instead of saying.."We need the oxygen molecule for our bodies to be able to turn food and water into energy for our bodies."
YOUR ? concept was derived later on... much much later on by a group of evil people who figured out a way to mind ? people into being obedient slaves. THEY decide what ? wants, which is trully what THEY want, and then instead of people worshipping a king, who could easily be exposed as a fake, they make you worship some false ? man in the sky that you can never 'disprove' based on reality. It's so failsafe that even with modern understanding of how the universe operates, there's still gullible human beings believing in this nonsense. Even to the point where they refuse to use their brains and understand the concept of mathematics and logic.... pretty much sounding straight silly to anyone with an IQ above 120. lol Chicken turn into a shark? lol see what I mean? that's just... hilarious. -
What missing link? It's called theorizing based on the laws of physics lol Mathematics? Ever heard ot it? It's like counting... Ever taken an IQ test? What's the next number in this sequence? 1,2,4,8,(?) <~ based on logic the next number is 16. It's not hard to fill in the missing link with logic based on the info we do have.
Sure. Our primitive ancestors began using tools in order to survive. In order to continue to survive based on migrating to different areas and locations as well as even diet, they had to think of new ways to improve upon their tool making techniques. Whether it be for gathering food or hunting or building shelter etc..... Well as you know from recent history, humans are always improving upon ideas and inventions and always discovering new information about the universe.
The ? concept came from a lack of understand how the universe operates, yet being aware that certain things happen to themselves, whether they realise what is happening or not. Like breathing air for instance.... animals aren't aware that breathing air truly keeps them alive, even though their bodies instinctively cause them them to panic if they are suffocating...that is a subconscious kicking into survival mode... that's how life operates. Humans slowly started becoming aware of these things... the environment permitted our brains to grow intelligent enough to realize this. But of course, without the knowledge that air is made of tiny molecules that our bodies need in order to live... they would make up a concept that would make sense to them so that it would make them feel comfortable. "Oh, the spirit of '? ' is breathing life into us!" Instead of saying.."We need the oxygen molecule for our bodies to be able to turn food and water into energy for our bodies."
YOUR ? concept was derived later on... much much later on by a group of evil people who figured out a way to mind ? people into being obedient slaves. THEY decide what ? wants, which is trully what THEY want, and then instead of people worshipping a king, who could easily be exposed as a fake, they make you worship some false ? man in the sky that you can never 'disprove' based on reality. It's so failsafe that even with modern understanding of how the universe operates, there's still gullible human beings believing in this nonsense. Even to the point where they refuse to use their brains and understand the concept of mathematics and logic.... pretty much sounding straight silly to anyone with an IQ above 120. lol Chicken turn into a shark? lol see what I mean? that's just... hilarious.
1. What missing link? The missing link that the whole scientific community is looking for, so that they can deny the existence of ? with tangible proof.
2. This is what you said, "the environment permitted our brains to grow intelligent enough to realize this."
You also stated, "If our environment does not change, then we will not change either."
So taking what you said and relating it the question I posed, are you saying that 1 human being grew a brain big enough to reason and that was the starting point? Or did many human beings at the same time grow barins big enough to reason? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Nobody has seen 1 species change into another species
Wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »
Well whoever that person is that saw 1 species change into another species has methuselah beat by a long shot. Mind telling me who this witness is? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »1. What missing link? The missing link that the whole scientific community is looking for, so that they can deny the existence of ? with tangible proof.
2. This is what you said, "the environment permitted our brains to grow intelligent enough to realize this."
You also stated, "If our environment does not change, then we will not change either."
So taking what you said and relating it the question I posed, are you saying that 1 human being grew a brain big enough to reason and that was the starting point? Or did many human beings at the same time grow barins big enough to reason?
1) A missing link does not prove your ? either.... If anything, when we find whatever missing link you're talking about, it will prove one of two things.... 1- OUR evolution was a complete and un-interrupted process here on earth... or 2- Our evolutionary process was given a boost by some sort of alien/E.T. life form that probably had enough time to naturally evolve into it's current form on another planet.
The fact that the universe an the earth is more than 6 thousand years old already disproves your belief system... We're not trying to find a missing link just to disprove your ? ... we don't need it. We're trying to find a missing link because it's called learning and discovering. lol
2) Yes, the ever changing environment. If the environment all over the earth was the same and never changed, I'm sure life would have remained as a single celled orgasm....
3) Your brain question is not that simple. The brain development in certain humans was, again, a slow process. So the primates who were living in the conditions that would require smarter brains would have slowly built up to that point. It's not like a primate gave birth to another primate and then all of a sudden they were building houses and creating languages. -
Did ? say evolution was not possible?
-
solid analysis wrote: »that very well may be part of the curse...
So natural disasters might be apart of this curse? Really, so tell me, why do other planets (which have no life in our solar system) also have natural disasters take place but to a higher extreme? -
Did ? say evolution was not possible?
? didn't say anything... a book did (or didn't).
