Do you think that evolution is a joke?!
Question: like from ape to man? or... bird-dinosaurs evolving into our days birds? i dont belive in the ape to man, but i do in the dinosaurs to mordern birds.
Answers: like from ape to man? or... bird-dinosaurs evolving into our days birds? i dont belive in the ape to man, but i do in the dinosaurs to mordern birds.
well no ...
well it depends how you look at it? some people think we will turn back into primates and others just think its not important to them as long as they are living
i don`t get it?
yes i think God made us not evolution
may b may b not,
"not "in this way that may b God have created us through this way.
Uh... No. Think about it. So much evidence about evolution you would have to be a tard not to see that evolution is real. Now the real question is, who created the universe? That I believe was God, but nature took its course and here we are today.
haha yea.
I'm not laughing.
i am a SDA and in sci class we tlked about this... evolution did not take place but creation by God did!!! God created EVERYTHING mature...for instance: a 32 billion volcano He knew what that looked like sence he has always exsisted!!! the earth is only about 6,000- 7,000 yrs old.... not billions of yrs...
You have to understand, most people cling to evolution (including scientists) without knowing exactly how it works. Throughout human history, people have willingly chosen ignorance for security and stability over uncertainty. This situation isn't any different. We'll ignore the fact it's still called the "theory" of evolution not because it hasn't been proven but because it's can't be proven. Here are some examples why:
In the theory of evolution, it's crucial that at exactly one point in Earth's history a living organism was generated from non-living matter. This process is known as "abiogenesis." It's a well-known and scientifically established fact that abiogensis is impossible and has never happened. They shot themselves in the foot with that one.
Consider fossils. When something is fossilized, it's put under extreme pressure and is petrified. According to evolutionists, fossils are formed because the surface of the Earth erodes and eventually covers things on the ground, fossilizing them over millions of years. Now consider a dead animal lying on the ground. It's obvious to anyone that animal and all of it's body parts (including bones) will decompose long before even just one million years passes because it's free to come in contact with oxygen. How then, by evolutionism's theory, can living organisms ever possibly be fossilized? In order to fossilize something, it needs to quickly be put under extreme pressure and immediately removed from any source of oxygen before whatever is being fossilized decomposes. Evolutionists conveniently fail to see this.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that evolution does exist and has been happening. A small, multi-celled organism decides (genetically) that it wants to develop circulatory, skeletal, muscular, nervous, reproductive, digestive, resporatory systems, a brain, eyes, a system of internal instinct among other things to become another animal. How does it even begin this process? Why did it suddenly happen with this organism? How long would it take for all of these systems to develop? Certainly, none of these things would sprout out in it's lifetime. There would be a span of thousands and tens of thousands of generations that would have all of these things remaining inactive until they're completed somewhere down the line and the organism's body suddenly decides to reject it's old bodily function and start living off newly formed, ready to use parts and systems of it's body. Assuming other organisms have evolved at the exact same pace and in the exact same way the others in it's species have and have "turned on" their new bodily functions and have "turned off" the old. They decide to reproduce and everything's fine. How ridiculous does this sound?
If this is, indeed, how it works, why are evolutionists unable to produce clear links between "evolved" species instead of resorting to using deliberately misleading and erroneous information? Because evolution as presented by evolutionists doesn't exist. It's difficult for scientists to let go of this theory because they've based their life's work on it. If they were to recant their theory of evolution, they'd be back at "square one" in many different areas of science. This gives them more incentive to keep running with the same ideas. I'd like to close with a quote from Nobel Prize winner, George Wald:
"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."
Those are a very few of the arguments raised against evolutionism. Feel free to contact me with questions. I'll try my best to answer them.