Science Disproves Evolution

Hm, perhaps because we see a species that did not exist arise out of a pre-existing one in the fossil record? Perhaps the genes? Perhaps the bone structure similarities?

"Let's say life started with a single living cell, as the evolutionists would have us believe" Righhhhtttt.....


No one is saying that single celled organisms evolved next into dogs or cats.

That's not what I said either. But if this common ancestry is true, then the first single cell, which wasn't a cat or dog, eventually branched off and evolved into cats and dogs.

After billions of years yes.

Its a bit of an oversimplification.

Ah, the magical properties of billions of years. Any problems or flaws in evolution? Don't worry, with billions of years, even the scientifically impossible becomes possible. Just believe that billions of years can turn a single cell into dogs and cats. If you just believe it hard enough, maybe it'll be true.

Back in reality, there is no evidecne that billions of years can do such a thing. It's just a speculation, a belief, a religion.

Seriously though Grey, you should stop trying to convince us of this nonsense. We're not going to believe it.

Oh I could see there's no shattering of your objective lens a very long time ago.

So why do you continue then?

"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun the moon, and the truth".

And thus, if anyone listens I'll continue to write on here about it.

Interested to know who said that?

Oh look, the predictable point where evolutionists assume that their view is absolute truth. And then you wonder why I group you with the 98%, it's becuase you fit the bill.

Oh, and btw, quote mining.

You've missed my point. The "truth", is that evolution is a theory, the truth is that neither your or I have absolute certainty, and the truth is many people don't understand what the theory of evolution entails.

I quoted Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), to point out that I'm not hostile to religion, I'm hostile to indoctrination.

But you claimed it's truth that billions of years can go from single cell which isn't a dog into dogs. Or are you going to backtrack and tell me that suddenly you're not certain that billions of years could do that, and that maybe what's purported by evolutionists isn't truth?

So are you hostile to indoctinating kids into beliefs of billions of years that you're not certain is absolute truth? (Let's see if you're capable of giving a simple yes or no to that, with no strings attached.)

Everything I have said about evolution, including the time frame, is based on current evidence, as I said earlier there's no absolute certainty, but this is where the evidence points.

You're comparing the teachings of theories in classrooms to religious indoctrination? How often do you go to church to listen to a sermon and have an audience member interject with a comment or question? They clearly aren't the same thing.

Really, so why is there such heavy censorship by evolutionists against anything that goes against their "theory" (aka. relgious beliefs)

Btw, good job completely evading what was a simple yes or no question. Like I said, 98%.

Because it isn't a yes or no question. Its a loaded question. You do realize that some classrooms, some PUBLIC school classrooms still teach creationism. If by censorship do you mean it isn't taught in accredited universities due to a lack of evidence, then yes. Why don't we still teach that there are humors in the body and that an imbalance leads to disease in classrooms?

As if evolution was a religion. You can cry out and bemoan that fact that in no way shape or form it is. You can stamp your feet and insist that it is on an internet forum, but it simply isn't.

As if evolution was an absolute fact. You can stamp your feet and insist that it is on an internet forum, but it simply isn't.

Anyways, I'm done playing with the typical atheist for now, just a waste of time and effort.

And yet all this time I've been talking about a lack of absolute certainty particularly when it comes from scientific theories.

Here's the thing Bryan. First, we are classified as primates as far back as Linnaeus. We are also classified as part of the family Hominidae which is the family of the great apes. Now it is correct that we are the only surviving members of the Genus Homo. However, it is also true that there were several other species that were members of this group that have since gone extinct. As far as the separation goes, we are really very close to chimps. We share most of our DNA ~96-99% depending on how your counting and several important genes such as OPN1LW which allows us to see the color red (something most mammals can't do) and some of our most important genes like for speech, FOXP2 creates a protein with just two small changes different than our chimpanzee counterparts. Not only are our genes similar, they are also in the same spots, such that we can clearly match up our chromosomes to theirs with their 24 pairs matching up with our 23 (Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of 2 primate chromosomes) In fact, we are so closely related that chimp diseases such as the SIV virus can cross over to become the HIV virus. So, we are very similar to chimps, roughly the same amount of similarity as horses have with zebras (which are generally considered the same kind). In fact, there are some scientists who argue that Chimps should actually be reclassified as belonging to the genus homo. It helps to keep in mind that there are only a few genes for intelligence and that the trait of intelligence requires a great change in lifestyle (such as us having to eat more meat, making room for it within the skull, finding a way to have children with such a large head size, etc.), so it would be very unlikely to see a chimp with human intelligence. It's simply not advantageous enough in their niche, and we dominate it's useful niches too much for them to have a chance at them.

Well I was taught about the humors in college, but it was a philosophy of medicine course. How about that as a fair compromise. We'll talk about creationism as the theory which was overturned by modern science thanks to the work of good scientists like Darwin. However, something tells me the creationists wouldn't be up for it.

A good point, I suppose it would be worthy of mentioning it in medical history.