Originally posted by robbie carrobie that atheism founded upon Darwinian evolution is a religion like any other? well well, who'd have thought it.
Still showing your total ignorance?
Atheism is not founded upon Darwinian evolution, atheism is not a religion.
From where have you got this desinforamtion? From the elders of the cult of yours?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie well in eighty thousand years you would think that they would have at least procreated to the extent that there was more evidence than that which can fit on a coffee table. What this has to do with my belief in angels, who can tell? are you saying that belief in a missing link is akin to belief in angels, that atheism founded upon Darwinian evolution is a religion like any other? well well, who'd have thought it. 😛
No Robbie, what I'm saying is there are some fossils which show intermediate stages between hominoid apes and modern human beings, ie. there is hard evidence of an evolutionary development leading to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of angels. That's what I'm saying. You may of course choose to believe that this evidence is entirely fraudulent or even manufactured by god in order to create sufficient doubt that belief in his divine magnificence would require an act of faith, but you cannot deny that the evidence exists and appear rational.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie haha, speculation built upon a hypothesis! we are not interested in what is plausible my dear friend, but what is true.
But you are claiming evolution is implausible, so we are interested in whether or not it is plausible, regardless of whether it is true. If you think it is plausible but not true, then we might as well just leave it at that.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat No Robbie, what I'm saying is [b]there are some fossils which show intermediate stages between hominoid apes and modern human beings, ie. there is hard evidence of an evolutionary development leading to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of angels. That's what I'm saying. You may of course choose t ...[text shortened]... ld require an act of faith, but you cannot deny that the evidence exists and appear rational.[/b]
to avalanchthecat
No No No....these arent intermediate stages at all, but simply different species of humans, which there are many, and the fossil finders havnt recognized this , what a huge blunder on their part, shame on them for trying to decieve the people!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie well in eighty thousand years you would think that they would have at least procreated to the extent that there was more evidence than that which can fit on a coffee table.
And what leads you to believe that? You keep repeating that over and over, but you still won't say why you believe it to be true. What do you think the rate of fossilization is? What percentage of fossils do we find? How do the fossils of other animals compare?
How many coffee tables do you estimate we should have by now? What do you base your calculation on?
Originally posted by vishvahetu .... and the fossil finders havnt recognized this , what a huge blunder on their part, shame on them for trying to decieve the people!
You are contradicting yourself here.
Either the fossil finders haven't recognized it and have blundered, or they are trying to deceive the people. They cannot do both.
Which accusation are you sticking with?
You are unaware of the term 'primate' and yet you are prepared to dismiss out of hand the entire discipline of evolutionary science? I think I'm going to back quietly out of this discussion at this point....
No No No....these arent intermediate stages at all, but simply different species of humans, which there are many, and the fossil finders havnt recognized this , what a huge blunder on their part, shame on them for trying to decieve the people!
vishva
Read the book I recommended to you earlier. You cannot make these assertions without considering the evidence.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Read the book I recommended to you earlier. You cannot make these assertions without considering the evidence.
to avalnchthecat
But when a system is false, and is only created to deny the existance of a creator, then the false system does not require to be studied, and so having full academic facts relating to that false system is not a requirement to discuss the origons of man.
And are you aware of the different species of humans, which the fossil diggers think are intermtant stages of ape becoming a man bones, but are in fact just different species.
They just got them all mixed up, and it looks like some sought of progression, but its not.
Originally posted by twhitehead And what leads you to believe that? You keep repeating that over and over, but you still won't say why you believe it to be true. What do you think the rate of fossilization is? What percentage of fossils do we find? How do the fossils of other animals compare?
How many coffee tables do you estimate we should have by now? What do you base your calculation on?
i have given numerous quotations from various sources, from individual more learned than me, in the immortal words of thinkofone, 'did you even read the thread up to this point, i suggest you go back and read through it again'!
But when a system is false, and is only created to deny the existance of a creator, then the false system does not require to be studied, and so having full academic facts relating to that false system is not a requirement to discuss the origons of man.
And are you aware of the different species of humans, which the fossil diggers t ...[text shortened]... just got them all mixed up, and it looks like some sought of progression, but its not.
vishva
You are incorrect. You cannot reasonably claim a system is false without any knowledge of said system. You are correct in that recovered fossils come from different species. The oldest ones are quite different from us. Over time they become more and more like us, until eventually, the most recent are exactly like us. It is conceivable that you could attempt to argue with the dating methods, but you would need to understand them in order to do so. Otherwise you're just spouting 'gobbledegook'.
Well its like this, i want to work backwards here, for instance.....
To come from apes means that the apes came from something, and that something came from another something back to WHAT....so what is that what that the darwinians say we come from in the beginning ?
vishva
Look, this is real simple, either you accept we descended from apes or you don't. If you don't accept we descended from apes, where do you think we came from?
Originally posted by avalanchethecat No Robbie, what I'm saying is [b]there are some fossils which show intermediate stages between hominoid apes and modern human beings, ie. there is hard evidence of an evolutionary development leading to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of angels. That's what I'm saying. You may of course choose t ...[text shortened]... ld require an act of faith, but you cannot deny that the evidence exists and appear rational.[/b]
there is a biblical text , which , as far as i can discern was written under inspiration, either i can give credence to the text or i can dent it. I have no reason at this moment for doing so. there is little or in some no evidence for any transition from apes to humans, if you like i shall detail the efforts that evolutionists have attempted and have had to retract. In some cases entire skeletal structures were built from a lower jawbone and two teeth (ramapithecus). In some cases what has been declared to be 'human', has in fact turned out to be simian (so called Lucy). The further back you go the less evidence there is, until you reach, a theory devoid of fossils and evidence! You'd be just as well believing in angels and a lot happier for it too!
Originally posted by Proper Knob Look, this is real simple, either you accept we descended from apes or you don't. If you don't accept we descended from apes, where do you think we came from?
Come on, it's not that hard.
little girls are made from sugar and spice and all things nice er.........until they grow up and you marry them
Originally posted by robbie carrobie i have given numerous quotations from various sources, from individual more learned than me, in the immortal words of thinkofone, 'did you even read the thread up to this point, i suggest you go back and read through it again'!
Please re-quote for my benefit. I must have missed it.
25 Jun '10 19:49
what's your thought on this
Back to Top