{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/9/2015 7:31:12 PM
263
Name one thing or species that has evolved in the past million years.
English
-
No they are not
-
By definition, it is. You must not understand how evolution works.
-
Edited by Tempest26: 3/11/2015 6:05:29 PMI know how evolution works ..... Even the people who wrote about it and discovered it found holes in their theories and have contradicted themselves and even came out with other statements that disproved their first statements .... Hawking, Darwin etc ... Darwin proposed a theory, but he has two entire chapters that state the evidence his theory required that was missing. He assumed the evidence would be there some time in the future. At this writing, it is 2010, over one hundred and fifty years later. If the evidence to support Charles Darwin’s theory was going to be found, it would have been found by now. Evolutionists are always looking for evidence to support their faith in evolution. Some even go so far as to make fraudulent proof for evolution. See my website page: Evolution Frauds. As I say on that page, if there was real evidence, fraudulent evidence would not be needed. This book is promoted as the bible for evolution but it actually has evidence against evolution. Quote by Darwin: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.” If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.
-
Edited by Britton: 3/11/2015 6:21:02 PM[quote]I know how evolution works. [b]your comments show you dont[/b] Even the people who wrote about it and discovered it found holes in their theories and have contradicted themselves and even came out with other statements that disproved their first statements .... Hawking, Darwin etc ... [b]because that's how science works, as new information is discovered, it is added.[/b] Darwin proposed a theory, but he has two entire chapters that state the evidence his theory required that was missing. He assumed the evidence would be there some time in the future. At this writing, it is 2010, over one hundred and fifty years later. If the evidence to support Charles Darwin’s theory was going to be found, [b](its been found for a long time, Darwin just put the pieces together.)[/b] it would have been found by now. Evolutionists are always looking for evidence to support their faith in evolution. [b]All of biology, molecular biology, paleontology, pretty much all the natural sciences do, and continue to support evolution. Just because you haven't seen what you incorrectly think evolution is doesn't discredit what it actually is.[/b] Some even go so far as to make fraudulent proof for evolution. See my website page: Evolution Frauds. As I say on that page, if there was real evidence, fraudulent evidence would not be needed. [b]so transitional forms in the fossil record are just nothing? Documented changes in modern times is just coincidence?[/b] This book is promoted as the bible for evolution but it actually has evidence against evolution. [b]no its promoted as the base model for how life changes[/b] Quote by Darwin: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.” [b]so because Darwin asked questions, its false? You're an idiot.[/b] If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection. [b]I don't even know what you're saying here. All the numerous genus and species didn't start into life all at once, they came at different points from their ancestors. [/b] [/quote] Evolution doesn't live and die with Darwin. Its has so much evidence outside of him proposing it. Its not like the bible, its not something that he said and is now just accepted. Its heavily investigated, and constantly being refined.
-
What im showing in that reply is that your evolutionists and writers .... Atheists .... They all contradict themselves and discredit themselves by saying their own theories were wrong later. They can't and you can't prove the bible to be wrong, or anything Jesus has done wasnt real .... But your so called theorists can be and HAVE been proven wrong.
-
Edited by Britton: 3/11/2015 6:33:44 PMYou show no example of contradiction or how they prove themselves wrong. Questioning your own conclusions is how you find out If that conclusion is correct or not. I know that notion is foreign to you, but that's how it works. I'm not disproving Jesus, I'm saying you have no proof for Jesus and his "holiness"
-
Wolves would not have evolved into the dogs we have today, because many traits which our modern breeds of dogs contain are not advantageous in a natural environment. For example, labrador retrievers are prone to having hip displacement problems, which means that they become less effective hunters and are more likely to live shorter lives if they contract this problem. Humans bred dogs to have desirable traits for humans, but this breeding has made these 'species' (in order for something to be considered a different species it can no longer produce offspring with its predecessor) has made them dependant on humans. They would simply be outcompeted by the natural wolf because it has evolved into an apex predator, which is designed to thrive in its own environment. Also, evolution cannot occur in one animal. That is a mutation, and will not be passed on, unless it provides an advantage which allows that specific animal to breed more.
-
Dogs have evolved from wolves into dogs.
-
Lol oh goodness .... They were bred .... Mated .... Wolves didn't evolve into the dogs we have today! Your telling me if we could go and watch a single wolf from back in the day it would have evolved into a german Shepard or lab? No, we bred other species with wolves and in turn it gave us our dogs of today.
-
Your knowledge base is clearly based upon assumptions and misinformation, on both evolution and how dogs were bred from wolves. I have niether the time, energy nor initiative to inform you of the factual, historical or scientific bases of any of these.
-
You my friend r a lost cause ..... Wolves evolved into dogs .... An international team of researchers generated genome sequences from three gray wolves – one each from China, Croatia, and Israel, the three countries where dogs are believed to have originated. They then sequenced the genome of a basenji dog from central Africa and a dingo from Australia. Both the regions have been historically isolated from wolf populations, according to a press release by The University of Chicago Medical Center. There does exist some amount of genetic overlap between some modern dogs and wolves. But this is thought to be the result of interbreeding after dogs were domesticated, not a direct line of descent from one group of wolves. Domestic dogs were bred and these admixtures are hybrids produced due to interbreeding between two different population groups.
-
Humans evolved about 1.4 million years ago.
-
Edited by Tempest26: 3/10/2015 3:14:05 PMO ok .... Since u said so
-
[quote]O ok .... Since u said so[/quote] Could say the same about the writers of the bible.
-
[quote][quote]O ok .... Since u said so[/quote] Could say the same about the writers of the bible.[/quote]
-
[quote][quote]O ok .... Since u said so[/quote] Could say the same about the writers of the bible.[/quote] [spoiler]Chekm8[/spoiler]
-
Yeah but everything written in the bible is first hand eye witness accounts and can be backed up by historical documentation .... Not to mention that the people involved in it can be back up in documentation along with numerous written accounts of others from the time. Not to mention that archaeological diggings have proven things to be true plus are still being discovered now and will be over there .... Plus things for told in the bible have come true in the past and are unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East. You just have to know what your looking for and open your eyes instead of just blowing it off as coincidence. The bible has YET to be proven wrong in 2000 years nor has anything been proven false in it. And is the oldest best selling reprint book and will continue to be because it's the truth. So yeah I'll continue to believe the bible and use it as evidence and trust in its teachings.
-
Edited by Britton: 3/11/2015 5:37:43 PMActually all the stuff about Jesus' was written second hand. And all the bible stories aren't written by the people that are in them. Adam didn't write genesis, moses didn't transcribe the flood story, etc. So no its not firsthand witness accounts. In fact, none of it is. And lots of stuff in the bible is clearly false, and has been proven false. Just because the religious community rejects that doesn't mean anything. Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. To even write that means you don't understand what stars are.
-
Really .... Can I have an example? Because it would be widely posted and could be found .... And I didn't say genesis was written by Adam, and the ark was written by noah. The books in the bible were written by people obviously from letters and documentation of first hand accounts of the men and woman that walked with jesus and who were chosen by God to get the message told.
-
Also my bad, on the Noah name mix up.
-
Then the bible isn't written first hand. Its written second hand. As you just claimed. Not only that, there is no historical evidence outside of claims in the bible, of who actually wrote many of the books of the bible. There are portions that are confirmed as having the author claimed, but there's more mystery than fact. Every account of Jesus that is used as credit for his existence, is credited to heresay from people who lived long after the time of Jesus. Also there is no mention of jesus in the well documented execution records of the time of Pontius Pilate the roman ruler who supposedly killed put him on the cross. So taking the bible as a evidence, is questionable at best.
-
Lol there are many documents from others .... Not just the disciples and prophets naming/showing and backing up what happened in the bible. Not to mention the things being discovered in the Middle East, plus the truth and prophecy that is being shown over there. Don't be blind open your eyes .... Things that are happening over there have been said would happen over 2000 years ago in the bible ..... Buuuuttttt lets just chalk that up to coincidence right?
-
Things? Wow so impressive. And who would've thought that a land that's been contested for almost all of human history would still be contested. So surprising. Any other magical prophecies? Also heresay accounts are considered evidence now?
-
It's contested just like it was in the bible .... Exactly what the bible says ... It's all magical and fairy tales to those that chose to not follow God .... Laugh all you like but it won't change anything about the truth. I can't and am not trying to force you or anyone to believe btw. Im just stating my opinion.
-
So thats the only great prophecy in the bible that's come true? If we wanna base validity on prophecy then Christianity is a little behind.
