• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Theory of evolution.... is failing..

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guest123_x1

Guest
0
Posts
    my take (caution-non politically correct)

    [FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif, Helv"]For many years, politicians and educrats within the government "public" school system have been pitching the idea that evolution is the only proven scientific method-and that any other concepts, including intelligent design/creationism are "bogus" and "religionist" and "don't belong in the classroom".
    I have yet to find ANY proof that evolution is 100% solidly proven fact other than "research" sourced from politically-favorable special interests, liberal academia, media, and other government-sponsored sources.

    Spoiler:
    [/FONT]
     

    ♥vampy©valentine♥

    100
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen Oct 17, 2008
    雀 said:
    I take it this somebody is much more religious than scientific, which would explain his/her statement. Unless there is another scientific theory that has risen to oppose evolution lately, that's the only reason I can come up with.
    Click to expand...
    its not so much as failing but the gap that where already there are becoming more noticable
     
    Zet

    Zet

    7,690
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Ok in the spoiler box, some people may find this offensive(religious people)

    Spoiler:


    Edit for the sake of it: I am a catholic, I respect any opinion and can make fun of religion because there is no harm being done
     
    Last edited:

    Captain Arcane

    spoon full o'peanut butter
    788
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • Well, if I were you in that situation I probably may have ripped that mans head off!? (yelling wise)

    In my opinion, (and many, many, many, many.........others), there is to much evidence to say "nope, there is no such thing". The man that probably said that stuff to you was most likely extremely religious, being either Christian, Catholic, or Mormon.

    Plus, to make Darwin ever more truer, an event is taking place right know!? All across southern California, all rattle snakes are loosing their "rattle". When they attack, their rattles do not rattle any more! You could probably go look it up on something like google, or whatever, but in my opinion, this is a big SMACK in the face to all those "super" religious people out there.

    Edit:
    Oh, and Aniki, that stuff in your spoiler was great! XD
     

    sims796

    We're A-Comin', Princess!
    5,862
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Captain Arcane said:
    Well, if I were you in that situation I probably may have ripped that mans head off!? (yelling wise)

    In my opinion, (and many, many, many, many.........others), there is to much evidence to say "nope, there is no such thing". The man that probably said that stuff to you was most likely extremely religious, being either Christian, Catholic, or Mormon.

    Plus, to make Darwin ever more truer, an event is taking place right know!? All across southern California, all rattle snakes are loosing their "rattle". When they attack, their rattles do not rattle any more! You could probably go look it up on something like google, or whatever, but in my opinion, this is a big SMACK in the face to all those "super" religious people out there.
    Click to expand...

    But not enough to exclusively say Evolution is the only way to go. That rattlesnake thing doesn't furter prove what he said, at least based on the limited info you gave. It could be a number of reasons why those snakes don't rattle. And it doesn't disprove Creationism any less. Or more. Whichever is in proper grammer.
     

    Captain Arcane

    spoon full o'peanut butter
    788
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • Yeah, I know I lack on details, but, I'm not in the mood to right a book right now! XD

    Yes, correctly, it does not 100% mean that evolution, is real, but either way or not, it sure helps it a hell of a lot.

    But, y'know, now that I looked over my post from a spectator's view, I just realized that I left out a specific part. -- Rattle snakes no longer rattle when they feel they're in danger, or when they're about to attack. They've completely stopped. (that was the point I miss completely)
     

    Kayleigh

    5,902
    Posts
    20
    Years
    • Seen Aug 30, 2021
    Aniki said:
    Ok in the spoiler box, some people may find this offensive(religious people)

    Spoiler:


    Edit for the sake of it: I am a catholic, I respect any opinion and can make fun of religion because there is no harm being done
    Click to expand...
    Actually, dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The only difference is that ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin" are used rather than what we call them now. It's in the very old book of Job (verses 40:15-19), which was probably written about 2,000 years before Jesus was even born.

    Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God…

    Some people could argue that the "behemoth" mentioned was something like an elephant or a rhinoceros, but... er, those animals certainly don't have swaying tails that could be compared to the trunks of cedar trees. ^^; I'm thinking it's something along the lines of a Diplodocus or Apatosaurus, who were both gigantic dinosaurs but fed on foliage and the like. Who knows? That's just my opinion. I wasn't there, so I can't argue that it's a "fact" or anything.

    But I still thought I'd add that in. I'd prefer to stay out of the other stuff since I don't exactly have the talent of debating well with others. XD; I'll leave that to the guys.
     

    Jaimes

    720
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • Seen Jan 15, 2011
    Captain Arcane said:
    But, y'know, now that I looked over my post from a spectator's view, I just realized that I left out a specific part. -- Rattle snakes no longer rattle when they feel they're in danger, or when they're about to attack. They've completely stopped. (that was the point I miss completely)
    Click to expand...

    I think he's trying to get at natural selection causing adaptations.

    Basically when some members of a specie experiences a mutation that makes them better off (e.g say a elephant had camoflage), than others in it's species (standard greys). So they are more likely to survive (e.g don't get eaten), so they mate and pass on the gene (creating camo kids). This increases the number of advantageous genes present in the generation and reduces the less useful ones.

    There's only a tiny amount concerning dinosaurs in the bible.. actually it's not even mentioned. The Behemoth/Leviathan are really quite vague, nor do they rule out the possibility of it being a mythical creature (Cherub anyone?).
    Belief that all except 2 from each species got killed in the flood is convenient... though how they all managed to fit on the ark beats me.. and what stopped them from eating each other. Good job Noah.

    And just for the record.. concerning the Book of Job, hardly any of the Bible exists as it's original text. Most of which appears to be written up to centuries after its supposed occurence.
     

    Merzbau

    it's just a ride.
    1,167
    Posts
    20
    Years
    • If I didn't put my two cents in, I could never forgive myself.

    The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin, is a groundbreaking work of science.

    When you look at science, you need to look at it with a scientific perspective. I observe, I record, make a hypothesis, test it, and if it holds true, I have a theory.

    That's how making a theory works.

    Just because something is a theory does not make it false.

    The theory of general relativity is just that, a theory. Is it false? We can see it happen in our very own weapons of war, atomic bombs.

    Some people will refuse to see things as they are. We have the fossils, we have the theory, it makes logical sense, it has been validated by transitional fossils, etc., etc., etc. It really scares me that people can have so much information at their disposal but choose to ignore it to fit their preconceived notions.

    An age of distrust of science and reason happened once already. Historians call it The Dark Ages.

    Sadly, it looks like it's repeating itself.

    On a final note...this image kind of fits.
     
    Zet

    Zet

    7,690
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • ok, since I was disproven i have to say this(again a spoiler thing ^___^)

    Spoiler:
     

    Jaimes

    720
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • Seen Jan 15, 2011
    Aniki said:
    ok, since I was disproven i have to say this(again a spoiler thing ^___^)

    Spoiler:
    Click to expand...

    I wouldn't exactly call the vague description over the Behemoth conclusive evidence, since it doesn't rule out mythical or animals which were undiscovered at the time. Its 'tail' has also been translated in other cultures as a more explicit organ, or could have reffered to cedar tree needles.
    Actually it sounds more like a Hippo (especially the swamp dwelling part). It was noting that Jewish cultures believe it to be a mythical monster.

    Have a Wikipedia link to read it yourself..



    If there were fossils of dinosaurs besides a fossil of a men...that would really shut me up. But good old evidence shows that we lived a LONG time apart. >_>
     
    Zet

    Zet

    7,690
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Didn't us humans come after the giant comet came and smacked up the most of the dinosaurs? then we came out of the swamps and grew arms and legs and ate the remaining dinosaurs thus leaving bones instead of the fossils? Also didn't the flood only flood Noah's crappy little village?
     

    Jaimes

    720
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • Seen Jan 15, 2011
    Aniki said:
    Didn't us humans come after the giant comet came and smacked up the most of the dinosaurs? then we came out of the swamps and grew arms and legs and ate the remaining dinosaurs thus leaving bones instead of the fossils?
    Click to expand...

    Accoding to science
    • Dinosaurs existed : 230 - 60 million years ago
    • Dinosaurs owned by meteor: 65million years ago
    • Modern Human race started: approx 200,000 years ago
    According to the Bible
    • All organisms began: 6000years ago
    • 2 of each animals taken aboard Noahs ark: approx 2100years ago
    • Global flood owns everything and everyone else... Creating all dinosaur fossils. (though not rabbit fossils etc.)
    • Dinosaurs get off the ark, though supposedly they all die soon after because they couldn't survive with the changed environment.
    • Other animals get by fine.
    I'm going to go with science on this one.

    Also didn't the flood only flood Noah's crappy little village?
    Click to expand...
    "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:21-23

    That is of course if you actually believe a 40 or 150 day long (Biblical contradictions) global flood occurred, leaving no geological evidence behind.
     
    Zet

    Zet

    7,690
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Whoal that means only Noah and his wife were the only humans who didn't die in the flood. So in retrospect they are Adman and Eve version 1.1 or something. But wouldn't the dinosaurs eat anything that moves on the ark?
     

    Jaimes

    720
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • Seen Jan 15, 2011
    As well as Noah and his wife, there were Noah's 3 sons and their wives too. Supposedly Ham was the ancestor of all African raced people, Shem was the ancestor of all Arabic races and Japeth the ancestor of the other races.

    God only allowed humans to eat other animals after they got off the ark (Gen 9:3) it is believed this also applied to animals. So the T Rexes and Lions were all originally herbivores.
    Besides when the animals left the ark what would they have eaten? Any plants would be killed by the flood and prey would become extinct... Someone didn't think it through.. >_>


    Though I think we're weening off topic right now.
     
    Zet

    Zet

    7,690
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Those are very good thoughts:P but since this is a topic about evolution failing I guess this can also support a way for evolution to be real
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top