Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
HansJob

The Evolution debate

Recommended Posts

@[member='Dalriaden'] But i have to ask, isn't the point of the bible that it's written by god? That it's completely holy and untouched by human beings?

Yes it's true that for Noah a normal sized flood might have seemed like it covered the earth but, Noah didn't write the bible.

(He didn't even exist really but that's a different debate...)

The whole point of the book is that it's supposed to be an unquestionable holy effigy.

And since it is questionable and wrong in many cases the best option would be to take it as Poetry, as it being holy in a nonfactual way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes more faith(?) to believe in evolution than creative design in my opinion.  

 

If the earliest type of hard-bodied complex "creature" has been determined by "science" to be the trilobite, yet no fossils of any of its previous ancestors have been discovered in the plethora of available sedimentary rock beneath the Cambrian layer, furthermore, not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil had or has been discovered there. From what creature did the trilobite evolve?  To say that this organism evolved from something else, where is the evidence of the "something else"?

 

That logic perplexes me as it is like finding a precision wristwatch while digging in your backyard, a wristwatch that has no previous models that can be located anywhere on the planet in all of the plethora of watch stores, museums, catalogs, etc.  Well, the evolutionists would have us believe that there is and was no need for a watchmaker or creator, only that time, water, minerals in the soil and elements of weather are all you need to produce a fully functioning precision wristwatch that runs.  

 

Truly, which is more far fetched?

 

xnCNCcs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Dalriaden'] But i have to ask, isn't the point of the bible that it's written by god? That it's completely holy and untouched by human beings?

No because no one ever claimed it was written by God.

http://amazingbibletimeline.com/bible_questions/q1_bible_who_wrote/

 

@[member='KnightsX'] the major logical fallacy in your argument is it takes more faith to believe in evolution because a precursor to the trilobite has never been found so it's easier to believe in an omnipotent being that's never been proven to exist. Not being a dick but it's a pretty obvious fallacy in your argument. Totouch on your argument there are species that went extinct on Earth today that we never knew existed. We just found another sea creature we thought was extinct but is still alive from the age of dinosaurs. There are fossils in museums that haven't been examined or havent been examined by modern scientific methods that could very well have the missing link for trilobites. We're finding new human species and humans at an earlier time period then we knew existed every few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Dalriaden']

 

Well, the fallacy in your argument is that no fossilized organisms that predate the trilobite have been located beneath the fossilized trilobites in the Cambrian layer, none.  That is a fact of science that every evolutionist puts their credence.  Where are these fossils?...the trilobite is the watch in my analogy.  Extinct species or not, unexamined fossils in a museum cannot change that fact.  

 

Further, my trilobite reference is not the sole argument, but one example ffs.  DNA changes within the same species is normal and pretty simple and common, but where are the fossilized remnants of one species mid-evolution to another species?  Hell, even Darwin admitted that that was the flaw in his "theory"....theory being the key word...Faith vs. Theory....that is the argument....as a former law enforcement officer, I often had theories of how crimes were committed.  Evidence is a fact that supports a theory, but it doesn't make my theories any more true....facts are shaky in the evolution theory....

 

Not here to change minds, just posting....everyone will have their answers in due time.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Dalriaden']

 

Well, the fallacy in your argument is that no fossilized organisms that predate the trilobite have been located beneath the fossilized trilobites in the Cambrian layer, none.  That is a fact of science that every evolutionist puts their credence.  Where are these fossils?...the trilobite is the watch in my analogy.  Extinct species or not, unexamined fossils in a museum cannot change that fact.  

 

Further, my trilobite reference is not the sole argument, but one example ffs.  DNA changes within the same species is normal and pretty simple and common, but where are the fossilized remnants of one species mid-evolution to another species?  Hell, even Darwin admitted that that was the flaw in his "theory"....theory being the key word...Faith vs. Theory....that is the argument....as a former law enforcement officer, I often had theories of how crimes were committed.  Evidence is a fact that supports a theory, but it doesn't make my theories any more true....facts are shaky in the evolution theory....

 

Not here to change minds, just posting....everyone will have their answers in due time.....

Actually facts aren't shaky in evolution theory at all. We know it happens that is a scientific fact, also the fact we haven't found anything prior to trilobites isn't a fallacy in my argument, since as I pointed out new fossils, new species, and new evidence is being found everyday. Have not found does not equal will not find. There is also no reason you can't have evolution and creationism. God made man in his image but we know homo sapiens wasn't the first species of man, again fact, not theory. So are we no longer in God's image or is it the idea we have souls that means we were created in his image?

 

You cannot say evolution does not exist. It happens every day in multiple species. If evolution didn't exist WHO and the UN wouldn't be concerned about penicillin resistant strains of diseases. The fact we have nothing discovered prior to trilobites does not negate the fact of evolution, while it helps give credence to creative design.

 

Now the fact that known surviving organisms are based on the same biochemical processes imo also gives credence to creative design but also doesn't negate evolution.

Edited by Dalriaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Dalriaden']

 

Don't say WE know it happens.....You and other scientists know it happens while other prominent academics and scientists know it doesn't happen, hence the debate.  The argument isn't just between evolutionists and creationists, it's also rages between scientists in the scientific community and academia, many of which cannot agree on the theory of evolution and the theory of creative design.  Theory because nothing has been observed to support species to species transformation.  When one of the drug-resistant disease strains turns into a goat, then you have a case....

 

Again, the trilobites was just one (1) example; that is not the limit of the argument, but it is damn compelling.  Evolution as Darwin proposed was not Micro evolution but species to species macro-evolution, of which no transitional fossil record exists, where it should exist, meaning it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.  Creation from nothingness can only be completed by intelligence, not a random act.  Which takes more faith?..

 

Carbon-dating is not reliable, as scientists within the community have argued about, therefore it is not a fact (lol).  So, the dating of fossils within rock layers is problematic.  Polystrate petrified forests in Canada with trees through many rock layers proves that dating fossils according to past and present scientific method is not factual, therefore it cannot be replied upon.  Rock layers do not necessarily determine thousands or even hundreds of years in age based on the FACT that the methodology is debunked.  

 

No one can argue the FACT that theory simply means an idea or conjecture used in an attempt to explain something, doesn't make it true, and facts(?) used to support a theory may exist but it doesn't make a theory more true than other possibilities.  

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='KnightsX']

 

No, you are using the term "Theory" to lightly here. A scientific theory is not like the word theory we use in everyday situations.

A scientific theory is always supported by different pieces of evidence and is as close as a fact as you can get.

The Theory of Evolution is one thing, while Evolution is a part of this theory. Evolution is a fact, that's pretty much it. DNA proves that we are related to the ape and shows a further connection with all other living creatures on earth. We know that living things change overtime and we know that we all share a common ancestor.

The theory part of this is mostly Abiogenesis, but "just because it's a theory" doesn't really change much.

 

What annoys me a little bit is that again you are claiming that there are no transitional fossils but earlier in this thread i linked several articles and pictures of several of them. Transitional fossils are hard to recognize AS a transitional fossil, but i'd say we have records of maybe a hundred of them. Again you are claiming that we have to find every single transitional fossil to prove evolution, wich is just absurd.

Carbon dating is not reliable? Have you been watching Kent Hovind videos?

 

As to these "Academics" who disagree with scientists is pointless. It's a peer reviewed theory, accepted as a Nobel prize winning scientific and last of all it's a fact. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world disagreed with Evolution. Unless they could disprove the theory they have no word in it.

Now as to these scientist who claim that Evolution is false and that Creative Design is a theory, well, they need to just slap themselves in the face and wake up. They can't be scientists working in that specific field, ignore facts and then produce a theory of their own that doesn't have any evidence to it at all. You can't call creative design a theory.

 

Wich sort of brings me to my question to you. You say that Evolution needs more faith than Creationism, but, how?

If you disproved evolution right this second and just deleted every bit of evidence from history it would still have as much evidence, as intelligent design has.

They would still both need as much faith. But since Evolution IS a fact, at the moment it would hardly need any faith at all wile creationism would require a large leap of bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='KnightsX'] so mice growing immune to rat poison, diseases growing immune to penicillin and other wide spread commonly used antibiotics, insects growning immune to insecticides, the cane toad growing longer legs, having more endurance and moving faster in order to rapidly expand its territory when it was introduced to Australia are not examples of evolution?These are all proven scientific examples, they're not conjecture, they're not imagination, they're not theory, they're fact. If you want to argue evolution does not occur well, you might have a leg to stand on if you say it didn't occur before the cambrian period, but there is no science that can flat out deny evolution occuring and still be science.

 

I suppose the theory that the earth orbits the sun must not be a FACT since it's still scientific THEORY. :)

Anyway you still only playing bf3? Not even going to try out dragon's teeth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Dalriaden']

 

@[member='KnightsX'] so mice growing immune to rat poison, diseases growing immune to penicillin and other wide spread commonly used antibiotics, insects growning immune to insecticides, the cane toad growing longer legs, having more endurance and moving faster in order to rapidly expand its territory when it was introduced to Australia are not examples of evolution?These are all proven scientific examples, they're not conjecture, they're not imagination, they're not theory, they're fact. If you want to argue evolution does not occur well, you might have a leg to stand on if you say it didn't occur before the cambrian period, but there is no science that can flat out deny evolution occuring and still be science.

 

I suppose the theory that the earth orbits the sun must not be a FACT since it's still scientific THEORY. :)

Anyway you still only playing bf3? Not even going to try out dragon's teeth?

These are examples of the science of biological evolution or micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, as I previously stated, and what Darwin was espousing.  It takes a greater leap, [spoiler]bullshit[/spoiler] that is not supported by any evidence, of macro-evolution.  The examples given by you may be factual as they are and can be observed, unlike your wholesale belief in evolution, which has not been observed, therefore remains a theory only.  The scientific community is at odds with itself on the Theory of Evolution, and many are jumping ship towards intelligent design theory.  Darwin's "Origin of the Species" proposes that natural selection got us the organisms and creatures of yesterday and today but mentions nothing about the origins of life itself, save for we may have all evolved from single cell organisms, which is a stretch by even contemporary scientific methodology, hence the departure of a great many members of the former evolution scientific community.  That's where science has tried to take the argument to support Darwin's theory, and fallen short, as their theory is not supported by any observable facts.  In fact, their facts have been disputed and found to be flawed by many scientists who have jumped ship.  So, the scientific community is not in lockstep with the Theory of Evolution.  One example is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which just throws a scientific wrench in the gears of the evolution and natural selection theory.

 

@[member='HansJob']

 

Yeah, you can find no flaw in "Peer reviews" lol....I'm sure that the debate from all lockstep members was convincing.  Obama won the Nobel, so that must be relevant, as it is totally objective.   And Fact, though a double-edged sword, is what each community says is a fact, nothing more, nothing less.  And no, I'm not saying that every transitional fossil needs to be found, just one that demonstrates macro-evolution, not some minor changes, as drug-resistant disease strains or toads.  The scientists who have changed, or Evolved, their opinions away from the Theory of Evolution towards the Theory of ID have compelling facts too, just as relevant as their counterparts.  They too, may win a Nobel, as the debate continues to evolve.  

 

It is just hilarious that the best minds in the world are still at a loss to prove or disprove either theory, yet they all claim to "know", without proof of observable indisputable facts how life began.  I concede that point.

 

Maybe Occam's Razor is correct, that the most simplest answer to complex systems is the correct one.  Since evolution poses more assumptions than answers and the assumptions provided by scientists in support of evolution don't answer any of the questions of the origin of life, how the universe was created, matter, then maybe the simplest answer of intelligent design is correct.  As for the leap, evolution requires a lot more bullshit.  Atheists argue that the existence of a god is an unnecessary hypothesis in the origin of life, matter or the universe, but they cannot answer the question of how matter or the universe is eternal?...that pesky scientific 2nd Law of Thermodynamics rears its ugly head again, and the point tips to intelligent design.  There are many questions and I could refute each one, but I won't here.  

 

As for BF4 and Dragon's Teeth, Dal, that game is Devolving, which is a FACT!...it is literally a broken POS that even HansJob's "bullshit" answer for anything

is the most simple, therefore the most correct, applying Occam's Razor.  Yep, I'm still playing BF3 on other servers since ADK dumped the 2 maps and conquest servers I enjoy playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='KnightsX'] man i gotta give that reply a clap, it was pretty awesome. Well thought and well made. Doesn't really change what i have to say, but i understand your point.

 

But still, you're making all these claims that scientists disagree on that and this, that alot of the evidence for evolution has been debunked. You also have not explained to me why you have the belief of intelligent design/creative design. You are claiming that this is a scientific theory, wich i don't think it is. 

If you could provide me with some evidence of Creative design, evidence and reports of these scientists who also disagree with evolutionary scientists that would be great.

 

Now Occam's Razor is applied alot to these kind of debates, but i think it's a bullshit thing to add. (Bullshit again, i like that word)

The simplest answer is always the correct one? Well yes, that is a good way to work things out. For example: Think Horses, not Zebras. But of course this implies that we have an actual valid simple answer. We know horses exist, we know there are more horses in the world than zebras. Occam's Razor does not imply to, well, basically made up suggestions.

 

Reading your comments i admire your writing, you're good at debating/arguing. You are better at compelling your arguments then i am. But that doesn't really do anything... You can have the most compelling, clever and charming thing ever and it still doesn't give it any merit unless there are any actual facts in the argument.

That's why i ask you again if you can provide any links to decent articles for Creative Design, disproving evolution etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  And Fact, though a double-edged sword, is what each community says is a fact, nothing more, nothing less.  And no, I'm not saying that every transitional fossil needs to be found, just one that demonstrates macro-evolution.

Macro Evolution if i remember right is the Theory of one species changing in to another?

I did put in several links about transitional fossils earlier, if you want to check them out. I'm sure you can also find more with a quick scan of the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='KnightsX']

Completely agree about battlefield 4, The maps are fun but I find it sad they took background buildings from siege and dawnbreaker and threw them into their maps, and hit reg seems to be getting worse. (Of course I havent played regularly in awhile so more then likely I'm just way worse.)

And:

Tiktaalik_Says_Hi_by_saintabyssal.png

 

I'm willing to conceed defeat, not because I believe you're correct but because I've exhausted my knowledge on the subject, and when I start reading up on more facts to use to debate with the material makes my eyes bleed and brain hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres.... a lot of discussion going on in here. I'm just going to toss in a quick unintelligent jab, and say that.... anyone who tells me the world is 3000 years old and that dinosaurs were put here by god to test our faith...

 

Don't get me wrong, I think faith and the theory of evolution can go hand in hand. But to completely disregard and deny science is dangerous. Next will we deny gravity's existence? Will that mean it doesn't exist or that we are wrong about gravity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres.... a lot of discussion going on in here. I'm just going to toss in a quick unintelligent jab, and say that.... anyone who tells me the world is 3000 years old and that dinosaurs were put here by god to test our faith...
 
Don't get me wrong, I think faith and the theory of evolution can go hand in hand. But to completely disregard and deny science is dangerous. Next will we deny gravity's existence? Will that mean it doesn't exist or that we are wrong about gravity?

Totally in agreement and not completely disregarding science.  The disagreement is whether the Theory of Evolution is science or opinion as both sides propose logical arguments to the debate and facts that can be interpreted different ways.  Even the scientific community is at odds over the issue.

 

Cheers!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand why both sides (scientists and religious followers) seem to feel the need to force people to choose a side to believe in... My understanding of the scientific theories, Evoloution doesn't attempt to explain how life came to be. Thats a totally separate theory called abiogenesis. I think science sufficiently explains why its impossible for Christians to take the Bible literally that 2 humans committed mass incest and populated the entire planet, the genetic defects that would arise would have doomed us from the start. So, it has to be a figurative interpretation, was the Garden of Eden a real place? Christians in general in my experience take the things literal they shoudln't and the things meant to be figurative literal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Neelix']

 

Yeah, evolutionists don't do that at all.........lol........assumptions never observed are not facts, or like you said, ...."take the things literal that they shouldn't, and things meant to be figurative literal.".....

 

Both have room to move; however it takes faith to believe in both Evolution and Intelligent Design.  Faith in a intelligent designer or faith in assumptions not seen, which is the basis for faith, "the belief in things not seen.".....Good post.

 

Cheers!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The bible can count as a holy book but sort of be "Poetic" not factual.

Actually, some arguments point the the bible being almost entirely "poetic" as you say, since that is how books were written back then (i.e. Iliad, Homer's Odyssey).

 

Many things, according to that argument, were meant to be figurative and not factual indeed. For example, Jesus breaking bread and feeding a mass of people with 2 fish didn't ACTUALLY mean he fed a crowd of people through a miracle, but rather was meant to be interpreted that he was an incredibly generous and giving man, who would be willing to share the last of his food with the needy. So on and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Neelix']


 

Both have room to move; however it takes faith to believe in both Evolution and Intelligent Design.  Faith in a intelligent designer or faith in assumptions not seen, which is the basis for faith, "the belief in things not seen.".....Good post.

 

Cheers!
 

Yes but by that logic it takes as much faith to believe in gravity as it does evolution. After all Evolution is just as close to scientific law as gravity is.

 

 

According to a new study published in Science this week, the dinosaur lineage that evolved into birds continuously shrank in body size over the last 50 million years and across at least 12 consecutive branches. 

"Birds out-shrank and out-evolved their dinosaurian ancestors, surviving where their larger, less evolvable relatives could not," says Michael Lee from the Australian Museum in Adelaide in a news release. The branch of dinosaurs that led up to modern birds -- called theropods, and included T. rex and Velociraptor -- was also the most evolutionarily innovative.

To trace evolving adaptations and changing body size over time, Lee and colleagues analyzed 1,549 anatomical traits from 120 species of theropods and early birds. They sampled traits across all branches of the theropod tree and across the entire dinosaur body in order to map out the transformation. 

Theropod body size, they found, decreased at least 12 times: from an average 163 kilograms (360 pounds) around 200 million years ago to the 0.8 kilograms (1.8 pounds) of the first bird, Archaeopteryx

The image below diagrams how theropods shrank continuously for 50 million years. From left to right: the ancestral neotheropod (220 million years ago), tetanuran (200 MYA), coelurosaur (175 MYA), paravian (165 MYA), and finally Archaeopteryx (150 MYA). 

 

shrinking%20600px.jpg

Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/dinosaurs-shrank-continuously-50-million-years#Yye4xVTuTtkQXk76.99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YIfwfqXqf8

 

While macro evolution may be hard to believe in, micro evolution isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but gravity is observed while macroevolution is not. Comparing gravity to evolution is illogical.

cheers!

Posted via the =ADK= Mobile App

And yet both are scientific theories one step short of being laws.

 

 

Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution". However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.

And then most importantly for your viewpoint:

 

 

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.

 

 

One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations. Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998), pp.477-8

 

The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by the vast majority of[23] scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics dismiss any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

 

My previous post already displayed a timeline of macro and micro evolution over a period of 200 million years. In other news nasa just validated a space engine that breaks the laws of conservation of momentum to work, but wait, scientific law is supposed to be impossible to experimentally disprove. Our understanding of physics, and science is still at an infantile stage at worst and juvenile stage at best. Only in the past two yearshave we actually photographed the double helix.

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

 

We need a science or debate forum :x

Edited by Dalriaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but gravity is observed while macroevolution is not. Comparing gravity to evolution is illogical.

cheers!

Posted via the =ADK= Mobile App

... I, i just.... I'm amazed.

You think that sentence just "Finishes it" like "oh! I guess Evolution isn't true then!

 

There's a really tricky debate about observing something to prove it...

Even though we haven't Observed macro evolution DNA has proven that all species are related, especially between man and ape (98.6%).

This tells us that we are related to Apes, but i agree it doesn't tell us we are "Evolved from apes".

 I guess the only way to really prove something is by Observing it. That is the only reason why most of the Evolution Theory is still "Just a Theory"

But it is so close! Just so fucking close to being considered a fact, the only thing that's stopping this that it isn't observed.

To look at all the Evidence we have found for evolution, for common descent, but completely disregard it and call it a myth because "We haven't observed it" is ignorant.

Edited by HansJob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='HansJob']

 

Ok....I feel lucky, thanks........like I dodged a major bullet......lol.    Back to your Planet of the Apes movie, then?

 

Of course we have similar DNA......doesn't prove anything either about evolution.  Just another assumption.........the scientific community is at odds with itself about making that leap and so am I, that's all....

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='HansJob']

 

Ok....I feel lucky, thanks........like I dodged a major bullet......lol.    Back to your Planet of the Apes movie, then?

 

Of course we have similar DNA......doesn't prove anything either about evolution.  Just another assumption.........the scientific community is at odds with itself about making that leap and so am I, that's all....

 

Cheers!

I doubt anything will be solved here.

 

I call an end to this debate, tally ho guv'nor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on this topic, 

 

I put alot of trust into science, even though it is constantly being proven wrong. Look at history, Before Darwin, A french scientist whos name I cannot remember, claimed that species could evolve in a single lifetime, people believed in him for 50 some odd years till a little nobody called Charles came forth and said "You idiot.. Look at this!", and even then people were not believing Darwin. 

 

Until a new theory arises (If one does) I will continue to believe Evolution. Creation of Man is just another arm of religion. It provides a explanation for the unexplainable. I don't have much faith in religion ever since I devoted myself to science. I have nothing against religion or its followers though, but who knows.. One day people might look back on evolutionists and call us idiots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use