James to thread. Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right.

[Witty]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

so has science ever proved evolution? I thought it was just a theory?

As is gravity...the scientific use of the word theory is not how we use it...it does not mean unproven, and yes, evolution has been proven, quite some time ago.

I could lay out every piece of evidence and every paper on the subject and you would disregard it without contemplation because you hae already made your mind up so you are pointless to debate with, if you want to know the answers to your basic questions do some research, you don't want that though, you want to troll and purposely misunderstand basic information...which is old.

[Destroyer]

it's like this nigga lives in a world without google

[veritas]

here is where it gets too deep for you. but first

but your magic book tells you it must be so! gasp! <-- ad hominem.


The Bible plainly speaks of a world before this. I have no problem with SPECULATING THAT there may have been a man like race way in the "past"

I mean someone greater than us had to have built the pyramids etc.

BUT THE HUMANS WE SEE NOW WERE MADE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN, THEY DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS.

It is possible that God used some of the same gene codes and just made us a more advanced model.


Fair? The point is that I have studied both sides, I agree with myself becuase I know what I believe.

none of yall can even agree.


FACT: it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God. IT actually takes more faith.

I will be happy to educate you to this if you would like.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Witty

As is gravity...the scientific use of the word theory is not how we use it...it does not mean unproven, and yes, evolution has been proven, quite some time ago.

have you ever seen anything evolve? do you know anyone who has personally?

[veritas]

is this how one googles bros?

The Ape-men Frauds
The "A" in the acronym FACE represents Ape-men frauds, fakes, fantasies and fiction. In other words the ape-men that have been set forth by evolutionists should be an embarrassment to them as well. By the way, if you want to study up on this on your own time from a secular perspective, there's a good book out. It's called "The Bone Peddlers" by William Fix and I highly recommend that because from a secular perspective he demolishes the ape-men frauds. From a Christian perspective, a great book by Marvin Lubenow called "Bones of Contention" published by Baker Bookhouse.
At one time it was thought that we came from the Neanderthal. Neanderthals were discovered from 1848 to 1856 and for years they were considered to be ape-men. But now we know, there's no argument here, that they're just plain ordinary people.

And then, of course, the ape-man that I introduced to you early on, Java man. Java man was discovered by a Dutchman. I'm a little embarrassed by that because I'm a Dutchman myself. His name was Eugene Dubois. The bones were found in 1891-1892 on the Indonesian Island of Java in Southeast Asia along the banks of the Solo River. And there was an interesting assortment. He found a leg bone, a skullcap, a jaw fragment and three teeth. And that's what he concocted Java man from. Interestingly enough some of the teeth were old and some young. The bones belonged to ape, female and male.

It was an interesting conglomeration and the reason that people didn't catch on to it is because the find of Dubois was kept from scholars for about 30 years. He also, of course, withheld the discovery of modern human remains, which were found in the same stratum as Java man. Of course that would have ruined his claims that Java man was the ancestor of modern day humans. Finally, enough pressure was placed on him that the actual bones were allowed to be examined and the discrepancies were found. And eventually, enlightened America as well as the world found out that this was a hoax.

Unfortunately hoaxes die hard. Time Magazine ran a cover story entitled "How Man Became Man". Richard Leaky is on the cover. It starts off ridiculing Christians and Creationists and then goes on to present Java man as though it were fact.

Then, of course, there's Piltdown man. This was a discovery by Dawson in 1912. It was shown to be a hoax in 1953. This is a deliberate fraud. There were obvious file marks on the teeth. Stone tools, supposedly used by Piltdown man were actually shaped by steel instruments. That should have been a dead giveaway. The bone fragments were stained to make them look older and yet despite this in 1915 Doctors Arthur Woodward and Arthur Keith, who were the two most eminent Paleoanthropologists in England declared that Eoanthropous, another name for Piltdown man, represents "more closely than any human form yet discovered the common ancestor from which the Neanderthal and modern types have been derived".

This was just 1915. Now they had a motive. They were later charged with perpetrating the fraud in the first place. Yet this fraud was used for over 40 years to prove to school children that evolution was a fact and all kinds of doctrinal dissertations were based on Piltdown man.

And then of course there's Nebraska man. One tooth found on a farm in Nebraska ... one tooth. But, with a little imagination, the tooth was imagined to be part of a jawbone. The jaw bone part of a skull. The skull part of a skeleton and by the time the story hit the London newspaper, we not only had a picture of Nebraska man but we had a picture of Nebraska mom complete with fur; All from one tooth. Imagine what they could have done had they found a skeleton; my they might have printed a yearbook.

And then there was Peking man. The skulls found in caves outside of Peking, China. To wit Peking man before World War II. There's nothing human about them but they were in good shape. The skulls in the back were bashed in just a hair. Other than that, great shape. Tools were buried in the same area and the deduction was made. Ah-Ha! This must be a tool-using ape. Hence, an ape-man. Great logic, right. No one stopped to consider that the tools might have been used on the apes rather than by the apes. And as a matter of fact, that is precisely why the back of the skulls were bashed in. Because, in that part of the world, monkey brains are a deli***y.

Monkey meat is too tough to eat so what you do is you lop off the head, you bash in the back of the skull, you scoop out the brains and you eat them. By the way if you saw Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, that's what they were having for desert, Peking man on the half shell. So Peking man turns out to be man's meal, not man's ancestor.

And then of course there was Lucy. This is one of my all time favorites ... discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johansson in 1974. It was dated at being three million years old. It was diagrammed at the very "Y" that separates man from ape. Now Johansson is a humble man and as a humble man he claimed humbly that Lucy was the most important find made by anyone in the history of the entire human race. The media immediately made Johansson, then an assistant professor, a hero. In fact, he got his own institute for human biology at Berkley but there's more to the story. The scientists were not allowed to examine Lucy's bones up until 1982. When they finally did, guess what they found? They found out that you couldn't really tell the difference between Lucy and a rainforest Chimpanzee that you might find in the San Diego Zoo.

I think it would do us well to heed the warning of Charles Oxnard from USC who said to the public "Don't be so gullible" and reminded us of past mistakes like Piltdown and Nebraska man. He said that we ought to be more discerning. Now if he says that, we should be sounding the alarm within the church as well. And I might say that by now mostly everyone other than perhaps Carl Sagan and maybe Phil Donahue know that Lucy is not the missing link.

So really what do we have here when we look at the ape-men frauds, fakes and fantasies? When we look at this fiction, here's what we find out. Neanderthal man turns out to be an ordinary human being. Java man, nothing but a couple of bones in a gravel pit along with some human skulls. Peking man was man's meal. Nebraska man was a pig. To say that humans beings and anthropoids are closely related because they both have ribs is like saying a butterfly and a jumbo jet are closely related because they both have wings.

The point is that there's an ocean of difference between an ape, which can't read and write and a human being who can sing the Hallelujah Chorus and do calculus. The distance between the dumbest human and the smartest ape is the distance of infinity. And I would suggest to you as Christians, that you ought to bone up on some of the ape-men frauds and use the stories on your friend the next time they talk about us evolving from monkeys. Unfortunately buying the lie is devastating. If we're nothing but sophisticated animals, we'll soon begin to act like animals. And if you want to see a perfect case study, look in the public schools of America today.

[Destroyer]

that's how Christians Google, yes

try this one though

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-12-human...e-thought.html

[Dominate]

V, I'll answer your line of questions if you'll answer mine. One answer & one question per post.

Humans evolved from single cell organisms, with many intermediate steps which I suspect don't matter because your line of questioning leads to here. Your next question is where did single cell organisms come from, I'd guess. But I'll let you ask before I answer.

Answer mine about the dogs.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Dominate

V, I'll answer your line of questions if you'll answer mine. One answer & one question per post.

Humans evolved from single cell organisms, with many intermediate steps which I suspect don't matter because your line of questioning leads to here. Your next question is where did single cell organisms come from, I'd guess. But I'll let you ask before I answer.

Answer mine about the dogs.

where did single cell organisms come from?

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

that's how Christians Google, yes

try this one though

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-12-human...e-thought.html

yeah that is a great article which actually helps prove my point. Thank you Jude.

[Fig]

If you flew to the moon, and found all sorts of machinery, you wouldn't assume it to be there without any purpose or reason.

That's why I find it hard to believe we just kinda stumbled our way here, random mutation after random mutation. There's evidence of intelligence all around us.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Figgles

If you flew to the moon, and found all sorts of machinery, you wouldn't assume it to be there without any purpose or reason.

That's why I find it hard to believe we just kinda stumbled our way here, random mutation after random mutation. There's evidence of intelligence all around us.

good point fig.


Evolution says that we drop a bomb on a forrest and get encyclopedias roflzord.

[Destroyer]

and strangely, all kinds of random mutations happens round us everyday at a molecular level
evolution just brings it up to a macroscopic level

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

and strangely, all kinds of random mutations happens round us everyday at a molecular level
evolution just brings it up to a macroscopic level

and these random mutations make the organism better or less than the original?

I thought inbreeding was a mutation?

dad?

[Dominate]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

where did single cell organisms come from?

Answer my question first.

[Destroyer]

looking at it as a "better" organism is the wrong way
look at it as "better suited for its current environment"

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

looking at it as a "better" organism is the wrong way
look at it as "better suited for its current environment"

so inbred mutations better suit a trailer park? How come there aren't any X-men living down on Valley rd. bro?

the whole mutation thing is a fail tbh.

try this:

Science is build upon repeatability. Has anyone ever claimed in the entire history of the world to have witnessed something evolve into an entirely new creature>?

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Dominate

Answer my question first.

your question was about can one type of dog become another type of dog? I don't care that is pointless. Ask me if a dog can become a bird and then we will talk.


where did single cell organisms come from?

[Destroyer]

yes, viruses do it all the time

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

yes, viruses do it all the time

where do the viruses come from? and viruses mutate into other viruses, not viruses mutate into different organisms bro.

[Destroyer]

earlier viruses