The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

ok homeboy, he documented change in the finch population on the galapagos islands.

Now, was that so hard?

 

[bri487 5,000+ posts]

Now, was that so hard?

go to bed.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

ill say it again. Dont smeer anyone to save your arguement. Might as well call me a nazi because you are done here.

And I would suggest that you continue to ride Bri's coattails. You certainly will not be able to stand on your own two feet.

And I won't call you a Nazi because I don't believe you are one. I will, however, be more than happy to call you a kissass.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Still waiting on those studies...

And it better be more than one //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[bri487 5,000+ posts]

And I would suggest that you continue to ride Bri's coattails. You certainly will not be able to stand on your own two feet.

And I won't call you a Nazi because I don't believe you are one. I will, however, be more than happy to call you a kissass.

why would he kiss my ***? why would anyone kiss anyones *** on this forum. we dont live together, many of us have never met each other, so why? whats the point? he isnt, he just agrees with the factual information i have supplied you guys with.

 

[randomco 10+ year member]

not isolated enough. on the galapagos islands darwin physically watched the beaks on the finches evolve into something more fit for the diet proved on the islands. the birds had no competition and no native forms on the islands. the only competition they had was between themselves. the fittest of the bunch lasted through time and a finch with the beak of the fittest became the specie. i believe there were 13 different species of finches that were originally carried to the islands through the trade winds. that is a classic example of adaptive radiation. 2 pts for me.

What you are stating is micro evolution which has been witness before. What I dont believe is macro evolution which has NEVER been witnessed. No one has seen one species turn into another, just species changing very slightly to adapt. Micro evolution does not prove macro evolution

 

[randomco 10+ year member]

oops

 

[randomco 10+ year member]

double oops

 

[MikeofTulsa Moderator]

What you are stating is micro evolution which has been witness before. What I dont believe is macro evolution which has NEVER been witnessed. No one has seen one species turn into another, just species changing very slightly to adapt. Micro evolution does not prove macro evolution

i thought of bringing that fact up earlier, but i didnt really want to get involved in this argument. i guess most people dont realize the 2 diff types of evolution theory. micro and macro. i have no problem admiting that micro evolution exists since it has been seen. but macro, well. it has yet to be even remotly proven.

 

[Beat_Dominator 5,000+ posts]

Proving "macro" Evolution is like proving that the universe is 13.5 billion years old.... it's SO big, takes such enourmous ammounts of time, that one must just have faith in what they see in the short run.

Personally, I have more faith in evolution than Astronomy's current measurements on the age of the universe //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[MikeofTulsa Moderator]

me, i have more faith in my God's word. but thats me.

 

[Beat_Dominator 5,000+ posts]

If he talks to you I'd listen //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[AcidicDreams 10+ year member]

i thought of bringing that fact up earlier, but i didnt really want to get involved in this argument. i guess most people dont realize the 2 diff types of evolution theory. micro and macro. i have no problem admiting that micro evolution exists since it has been seen. but macro, well. it has yet to be even remotly proven.

haha... nothing personal but I'm guessing you are a christian, which would require your ability to beleive in the unknown/unseen....

but I suppose you could hold science to a different standard since they claim not to believe in the unknown... which of course is often forgot in the scientific world when they quit asking questions about long upheld models of how things work...

 

[kuijo 10+ year member]

why would i read a book about a topic i disagree with?

and if everything people throw out is random then i say the book by charles darwin is a random book of fiction and i chose not to believe it......

you can believe what you want and i will believe what i want......

all i'm saying is that for your sake...i hope you're right

To be better informed? If anything you SHOULD be reading books you disagree with to better understand why you believe in what you do.

That was a very ignorant statement...

edit: just read the other comments on what you said. I'm glad somebody else said something earlier.

 

[Beat_Dominator 5,000+ posts]

Books are good.