evolsion (Page 4)
kittybobo34: The assumptions and opinions are based on facts, and research. Your truth is based on superstitions which are definitely not science.
kittybobo34: Wow, that was painful listening to this guy try to explain what he doesn't understand. But, quoting his creationist documents he managed to get all of his points wrong.
He said the fossil record doesn't back evolution. It just happens that the theory was based on the fossil record, and actual observations of wild life.
He said Geology doesn't fit, and he points out a specific volcanic eruption to explain topsy turvy geologic layers, as if volcanoes happen everywhere.
He said molecular biology doesn't allow change and he is right. Sexual reproduction is what drives evolution not molecular biology
He said 2nd law of Thermodynamics prevents complexity, But he ignores the rest of the law that states in open systems supplied by an energy source it does get more complex. In this case that source was deep sea volcanoes and later on the sun itself.
He said radioactive dating methods are not reliable, and just ignores the laws of physics that say they are.
He mentions probability mathematics. As if there is any way to measure probability's on cell structures we are still learning about today..... Here's one , people that have more birthdays tend to live longer..... what are the odds for that.
This was just a tiny sample of the misstatements,, goes to show how far these people will go to twist science to fit their bias.
(Edited by kittybobo34)
Angry Beaver: New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the “Young Earth” creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.
According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38%, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys. Fifty-seven percent accept the validity of the scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
kittybobo34: Evolution and the flood myth are both at the heart of this debate. Proving ether one would give a huge advantage to one side of the other.
kittybobo34: Verify the Eye witness accounts of the world flood.... didn't they drown?
Microbiological research has helped verify the path of evolution. One by one they are decoding the DNA of species and determining which came from where.
kittybobo34: Hmmm and what documents are left from Noah and his family?
Amino acids make up proteins which do all sorts of things, and they are not alive.
kittybobo34: The point that you missed is that all the complicated things that you attribute to life are done by non living molecules. The boundary between life and non life is very gray. Especially when you are dealing with virus and primitive bacteria.
OP is not even talking about evolution, unless im mistaken OP is taking about behavior chains
perception ->thought -> emotion -> behavior
or how chains evolve into actions like
thought - action
emotion: thought: action: emotion
theHating: op isnt talking about clades and diversification of species, hes talking about diversification of human thoughts through perceptions and reactions. feel free to go to page one and re read, you craven dunce