Earth without gods or demons.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If chimps and humans had a common ancestor and the change is ever so
slow where are of those creatures that between one species and the last
one?

Stop bringing out the same tired old long-, long-answered arguments again and again as if they were novel, deep sparks of insight. What's your next claim going to be, "you can't evolve an eye"?

Furrfu.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Stop bringing out the same tired old long-, long-answered arguments again and again as if they were novel, deep sparks of insight. What's your next claim going to be, "you can't evolve an eye"?

Furrfu.

Stop bringing them up why? It isn't like they have ever been really
answered, they are just some of the things you'd see if it were true.
They eye cannot be evolved without a major pieces of magic taking place
that no one can really account for only suggest. The issues with evolution
going from a single life form into the variety of life today is something that
has to be taken on faith to over come so many things.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Stop bringing them up why? It isn't like they have ever been really
answered, they are just some of the things you'd see if it were true.

It has been answered many many times. You are either very blind, or lying.

They eye cannot be evolved without a major pieces of magic taking place
that no one can really account for only suggest..
Again, lying or blind. The evolution of the eye has been covered before in threads that you took part in.

The issues with evolution going from a single life form into the variety of life today is something that has to be taken on faith to over come so many things.
Yet when asked what those things are, you will disappear in a cloud of vagueness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Funny how you use the word 'man' as a generic and then talk of 'chose to'. Which men in particular were involved in this decision? Why did it result in flaws in me?

[b]Quite simple don't you think?
Quite vague.

Easy to understand is it not?
I sure hope so. That way you should be able to answer a few questions about it.

So easy in ...[text shortened]... m and using what monetary system? See if you can explain it in terms that adults can understand.

Which men? It was the first man. You are flawed because of your so-called evolution or EVIL-LUTION from the first man. You need renewed programming to understand. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
If chimps and humans had a common ancestor and the change is ever so
slow where are of those creatures that between one species and the last
one? You seen a change on that scale or have all the changes you seen like
the ones we just talked about where you start with flies and you end with
flies?

Time isn't the issue with me, I'll grant you all the ti ...[text shortened]... ities are much larger where it is all just right before something
changes and all bets are off.

So you are saying that even with sufficient time dogs and cats could not have evolved from a common ancestor. This means that your position is empirically testable, it is simply a matter of finding the intermediate forms.

Originally posted by DeepThought
So you are saying that even with sufficient time dogs and cats could not have evolved from a common ancestor. This means that your position is empirically testable, it is simply a matter of finding the intermediate forms.

I'm not the one claiming they did, my claim is that we can see small
changes in the life we see today and guess what, we see small changes
in the life we see today! You have something so drop dead positive it is
evidence of a common ancestor of dogs and cats came from life form?

Or do you just have another life form that may look like them in some way?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have something so drop dead positive it is evidence of a common ancestor of dogs and cats came from life form?

We have a number of things drop dead positive.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not the one claiming they did, my claim is that we can see small
changes in the life we see today and guess what, we see small changes
in the life we see today! You have something so drop dead positive it is
evidence of a common ancestor of dogs and cats came from life form?

Or do you just have another life form that may look like them in some way?

Do you or do you not agree that your position is empirically testable?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Do you or do you not agree that your position is empirically testable?

I agree my position is the one we see by direct observation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree my position is the one we see by direct observation.

What observation is that?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Stop bringing them up why? It isn't like they have ever been really
answered, they are just some of the things you'd see if it were true.
They eye cannot be evolved without a major pieces of magic taking place
that no one can really account for only suggest. The issues with evolution
going from a single life form into the variety of life today is something that
has to be taken on faith to over come so many things.

Yes, go ahead, stop denying anything that doesn't fit your opinions. Sorry, mate, but we know how the eye evolved and it doesn't involve any magic; we know how chimps and apes evolved from a common ancestor and it doesn't involve a chimp magically turning into a human; we know all this, despite you denying it.

Also, there is no such thing as an "evolutionary level"; you can't "de-evolve"; and two species with a common ancestor aren't "really the same thing". Any more million-times-debunked myths you want to spout? How about you tackle that heathen, un-Christian General Relativity next? You know, 'cause it's ungodly to think that light can have a fixed speed?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yes, go ahead, stop denying anything that doesn't fit your opinions. Sorry, mate, but we know how the eye evolved and it doesn't involve any magic; we know how chimps and apes evolved from a common ancestor and it doesn't involve a chimp magically turning into a human; we know all this, despite you denying it.

Also, there is no such thi ...[text shortened]... neral Relativity next? You know, 'cause it's ungodly to think that light can have a fixed speed?

I'm sorry you may have an idea about how the eye evolved, but you really
don't know how or even if it did evolve. That is the issue with the true
believers of evolution, they find a good story and claim it as true, it maybe
true, but in their minds it is no matter what.

No one knows if a light sensitive anything ever just sprang up, but it fits the
theory so it must be true, it does not mean it was it is just the best story
to date. If all the light sensitive spots that are meaningful were products of
design then the theory is meaningless. That means it is also you who looks
at things that doesn't fit your opinions you just reject out of hand.

So if a light sensitive spot appears you then have to have several things
occur that make that spot useful. Think of it as a car radio antenna, what
good would having something sensitive to receive radio signals if there was
nothing about the life form that understood radio signals, if it did recognize
them it would need to in some useful means!

The stories those who talk about how it COULD have happen are always
filled with words like it may have, or it is possible this occurred, so there
really isn't a real knowledge only a good story behind how it might have
happen.

Knowing we have eye sight isn't proof for evolution, it does not scream
evolution is true. Yet opinions are fixed upon the stories that make
evolution true because it fits their opinions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sorry you may have an idea about how the eye evolved, but you really
don't know how or even if it did evolve. That is the issue with the true
believers of evolution, they find a good story and claim it as true, it maybe
true, but in their minds it is no matter what.

No one knows if a light sensitive anything ever just sprang up, but it fits the
t ...[text shortened]... et opinions are fixed upon the stories that make
evolution true because it fits their opinions.

No matter what, is what you said about 'believers' in evolution.
It is so funny how theists ALWAYS think they have to box in a non-theist in the 'believers' in SOMETHING sandbox, as if by saying that you somehow validate your theistic stance.

The fact of the matter is that archaeologists have uncovered fossils with no eyes but light sensitive buds that stand in for eyes and in fact there are living creatures who have light sensitive cells but can's actually see a thing.

Like jellyfish. They respond to light and have zero optical neurons. There are cells on the body that just responds to light and causes a reaction to get away from it and so forth, as a defense mechanism but they don't even have a brain to send optic information to.

Just a light reactive cell that causes hormones and other chemicals to be emitted that steers the jelly fish in such a way as to tend to increase it's survival.

There is ZERO doubt there are animals who have lost the ability to see, like some salamanders in caves, deep inside where no light ever penetrates and they evolved over eons, eyes being useless, so they lost that sense.

You continue to think eyes are some kind of magic but they have a history going back some 600 million years. You see a dead sea creature with eyes and you can trace the eyes and optic nerves to a brain.

Then you see a fossil 100 million years old that has the exact same shape and it has little bulges where eyes are and it is clear those are the places where future eyes develop because there are in fact intermediary fossils in this regard.

You just want to deny what is well known since it goes against your religious bias.

That is all it amounts to, defending your religious bias.

AND you have no other options, you cannot, for instance, admit when a new fossil is discovered that shows a direct connection between eyeless creatures and subsequent ones with eyes.

Given such evidence you will just go into the denial phase, cutting down the science involved. You have no other choice.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No matter what, is what you said about 'believers' in evolution.
It is so funny how theists ALWAYS think they have to box in a non-theist in the 'believers' in SOMETHING sandbox, as if by saying that you somehow validate your theistic stance.

The fact of the matter is that archaeologists have uncovered fossils with no eyes but light sensitive buds that ...[text shortened]... will just go into the denial phase, cutting down the science involved. You have no other choice.

This sounds like more evolutionists propaganda to me. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
No matter what, is what you said about 'believers' in evolution.
It is so funny how theists ALWAYS think they have to box in a non-theist in the 'believers' in SOMETHING sandbox, as if by saying that you somehow validate your theistic stance.

The fact of the matter is that archaeologists have uncovered fossils with no eyes but light sensitive buds that ...[text shortened]... will just go into the denial phase, cutting down the science involved. You have no other choice.

You seem to miss the point, I know there are light sensitive spots, never
once did I deny that; however, what I am suggesting you've no way of
knowing if they were put there by design or through evolution just by
looking at them! Simply saying they were there millions of years ago only
means they were there millions of years ago, it does not mean that they
just showed up through some quirk of random changes in DNA.