Have we taken ourselves out of Evolution?

[Deleted]

If you know a tad bit of evolution you know of the guy who drew different animals and put them in a row and said they evolved in that order. (I.e. horse to zebra etc etc) He was ofc taken as a liar right away (this was a few years after Darwin) this part is still in school books in the US.
So yeah it's not bullshit lies.
And if u dont know who im talking about ill find u the name i cant remember it off the bat.




You asked me why it was a stupid theory and i responded. Now u ask me what this have to do with evolution? Wtf?

The idea of evolution is a lot older then Darwin btw.

[Deleted]

Here's a crazy question for ya'll.
Why haven't we observed the creation of a star?

---------- Post added 2012-10-14 at 01:32 PM ----------

The idea of evolution is a lot older then Darwin btw.

I know.
PS. oldest theory is the belief in a Creator.

[Deleted]

You cannot use logic alone that will fail you. You most combine the use of logic and intelligence to get a correct conclusion.
Stop talking as if you represent the whole of evolution supporters / believers in the world. 99% of the 'believers' of evolution had it stuffed down their throat as kids in school using fake and wrong evidence to confuse kids.

Ha ha like the fairy tale of creationnists has not been rammed down the throats of generations of kids through old silly story books and blind religious beliefs? People such as yourself used to jail, torture and burn scientists who found proofs going against religious teaching. Simple things now accepted like the earth is round...

[semaphore]

So now that I flipped it around and said the reason they look alike could be a common creator and not a common ancestor then you turn the board around to ask me to proof a common creator?

Your terrible English makes no sense to me. The point remains that if you want to posit an entity to explain what we observe, then you need to first establish that entity actually exists.

Evolution is accepted because it doesn't require anything that hasn't been supported by evidence. You want to argue it's wrong? Then you need to do at least as good.

How about we (you) acknowledge that it is a possibility that they have a common creator

But I do. Anything is technically possible. It is technically possible that I am an AI speaking to you from the future. But like creationism that is very, very, very, very, very, very, very improbable.

Science says big bang created the earth etc.

No it doesn't. Good job demonstrating just how unbelievably ignorant you are about the stuff you criticise.

Science says it doesn't know what created the big bang.
I say a 3rd entity which is alpha omega etc. created the big bang and laws of physics etc.

Sure, why not.

Which other option is there than a 3rd entity? There's no other option.

Yes there is. A universe can come from nothing. This is mathematically possible.

Hence that's a proof in itself.

No, that's called an argument from ignorance. "I don't know what caused the Big Bang, so this must have caused it". It's fallacious, and your utter lack of logic is ironic.

[Deleted]

People such as yourself used to jail, torture and burn scientists who found proofs going against religious teaching. Simple things now accepted like the earth is round...

No actually people such as me ensured justice on earth.
Jail, torture and burning of scientists was done by christians and jews

[Dragonwing]

You believe that a big explosion happened where nothing exploded and everything was created incl. laws of physics / nature.
You believe that out of NOTHING a big ass explosion can create the universe and sustain it, expand it and support it.

How is this not stupid? You believe something came out of nothing which has never been observed. Wether through visual or scientific proofs.

That is NOT the theory of evolution. You are talking about the Big Bang theory, which describes the Origin of the Universe. The theory of Evolution describes how life on Earth changes over time. You haven't just got two theories mixed up here, you have got two different fields of science confused (physics/biology)

The point is that chromosome 2 says that monkeys or w/e has 2 chromosomes which when put together looks like a chromosome which humans have.

Huh? Other great apes have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. According to the theory of Evolution, there must have been a fusion between two chromosomes. Conveniently, we have identified this, as Chromosome 2.And no, it is not just based on "looks like"

Science says big bang created the earth etc.
Science says it doesn't know what created the big bang.
I say a 3rd entity which is alpha omega etc. created the big bang and laws of physics etc.
Which other option is there than a 3rd entity? There's no other option. Hence that's a proof in itself.

THAT is your argument?
First of all, Science says that the Big Bang created the universe. The Earth came into being much later on (13.7 billion years vs 4.5 billion years).
Secondly, that is not a proof in itself. That is a mixture of an Argument from Ignorance and a God of the Gaps argument. Saying "A wizard did it, there is no other explanation) is NOT a conclusive proof. If you truly think magic did it, you must prove it conclusively, ie. empirical evidence (not philosophical 'proof'). Otherwise, the answer is still "We don't know".

[Doktor Faustus]

What about intelligent design?

I'd piss my pants if in a 1,000 years (assuming we do not wipe ourselves out) we discover God in his laboratory on Pluto wearing a troll face mask.

But, seriously, I will never know the 'truth'.

And in fact, I do not want to.