Do you agree with Charles Robert Darwin's theory of evolution?
Did you know the theory of evolution can be proven with all the researches naturalists have conducted?
Which do you think we are from, monkeys or Adam and Eve?

Monkeys. I mean look at the way most men turned out! :P

@ carnalsins

you agree with darwin manami?
do you even know what darwin suggested? before this whole theroy of evolution got blown out of proportion and elevated from theory to est. fact based on speculative infomation?

Where are the missing links?

Did you know years ago it was believed by the same 'experts' of today that your tonsils and apendix were vestigial organs meaning: hey are left-overs from when you evolved from a monkey?
there were over 150 'vestigial organs' in the body and ALL of the have been found to have a function purpose.

My idiot lecturer tried to tell me that wisdom teeth are an example of this vestigial factor since not everyone has them.
so I asked him
"So are wisdom teeth vestigial?"
him: "....umm...uh...what does vestigial mean?"
(O_O)

Manami, darwins theory was that we started off simple and go t more complex over time, this is simply not true as micro biologists are getting more technologically advance and can look closer and closer at micro organisms and they are seeing huge complexity's of these little life forms.

Fact is evolution CANNOT be proven, because of this:
Monkeys -- ???? (missing link)-- Us
So, they need to find this missing link 1st, which hasnt been done. (O_O)
Even if they DO find a specimen the scenario changes:
Monkeys -- undiscovered Missinglink A -- Dicovered missling link -- undiscovered missing link B -- US.

This will have to go ON and ON until there is unrefutable evidence that we or ANYTHING came from a different form whether it be chickens from T-Rex's or whatever.

Theory of evolution is forever a theory.
heres a site that kicks evolution IN the BALLs.
www.lifewhy.org

and to talk of 'experts', it was taught for almost 500 years that the body constantly reproduces blood instead of a circulatory system. This was in the 1300's if I remember correctly.

We laugh at the stupidity now like we laugh at the people that believed in Zeus and the rest of the gang. 150 years from now this laughter will repeat.

As long as this world lasts that long, which I dont.

was adam or eve a monkey? just asking i thought we came from parasite in the ocean! oh well unless you were there when it all began who really knows.

Umm well Adam and Eve are a couple who was created by authors of the Bible.

if we evolved from monkeys than why are there still monkeys...

exactly tombraider.

look manami, dont come onto a forum and post a question where you dont defend you're postition on the topic.
You've just lost you arguement by not commenting as its put you at a loss for words.

See the does God have DNA post LOL

Genetics is amazing....

lol yea I used it there and then I came here and was like (x_x)
and just copy=pasted.

Manami,
this is your post in the DNA thread:
"Thu 11/01/07 09:44 PM
human pig duck snake tuna yeast
13 66

human and pig have 13 differences

human and yeast have 66 differences in gene

Huge rocks have creatures with simpler structures in lower layers than higher layers.

I have more proofs.

it CAN be proven.

We have to research more, but more time goes by, more information were found. It IS true. "

Focussing on the layers part:
They have found petrified trees lying VERTICALLY through ALL of these layers, what does THAT tell you about it?

LOL you're comparing yeast and a pig to humans?
are you saying we came from a hybrid-pig-yeast-monkey?

See this is EXACTLY what Im talking about.
'experts' barf out LUDICROUS subjects and attempt to find SOMETHING that can be used to keep this dying theory alive.

A squid as two eyes, OMG so Do WE! missing link!

Manami, I challenge you to disprove this:
www.lifewhy.org

by the system on that site, it proves that evolution is impossible.

I think we came from Adam and Eve.

nobody is really sure where hominids came from, man thinks they figure it out but then they find something to disprove the previous theory! I doubt we've uncovered 5% of the facts of whats out there! science is pretty sure life began in Africa but time will tell...hopefully!

Charles Darwin was the first to realize that living species may have evolved instead of being created from scratch as the Biblical picture suggests. He actually had observational evidence upon which to base his ‘theory’ but his evidence was not conclusive.

However since that time science has moved forward a significant amount. Evolution has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. There’s simply no doubt in the scientific community. They fully understand from the clear evidence that life most certainly did evolve on planet earth. It’s no more open to being questioned than the fact that the earth goes around the sun. It’s a an observational fact.

People who deny evolution are simply uneducated or they are religious fanatics who simply refuse to look at reality and would rather believe in mythology at all cost. That’s all there is to it. If anyone should be required to produce ‘proof’ of their outrageous claims it is them.

Religious fanatics scream that there is no proof for evolution while there is overwhelming proof. Yet they turn around and support an ancient mythological dogma for which there is absolutely no prove whatsoever. How silly can a person be?

There’s no sense in trying to prove anything to a person who’s behaving so irrationally. Obviously they have no understanding of what ‘rational’ means. Therefore the whole concept of a ‘proof’ is something that they are completely incapable of comprehending. They are obviously fixated with ancient mythology for which there is no proof at all. :laugh”

Proof is totally meaningless to such people. They prefer to pretend instead. Trying to prove anything to them is like trying to teach a dog to speak English. There are better things you can do with your time Manami.

I think that we are all bits of noodle in a primordial alphabet soup ...

except some ba5tard keeps stirring it up!

Just as I get a triple word score on "discombubulated" as well!!!

For a theory to be scientific, it must be reproducable in a laboratory. Since Evolution can't be caused in a laboratory, it cannot be a scientific theory. That's not to say that evolution isn't possible, I'm just pointing out that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory by the definition used by science. If you want to place your faith into a non-scientific theory, be my guest. But please don't insist that your non-scientific belief is "science" and then doubt the foundations of my non-scientific belief.

I think this horse has been flogged before in these forums, excuse me if I don't contribute more than this post.

Spider wrote:
“For a theory to be scientific, it must be reproducable in a laboratory.”

Where did you get that idea? From kindergarten?

There are a lot of scientific facts that have not been reproduced in the laboratory. Black holes come to mind as well as atoms which were known to exist long before they could actually be seen. Science includes all observations that lead to specific conclusions. Fossil records for evolution ARE laboratory evidence. The Earth IS the laboratory of paleontologists you silly person!

Your naïve definition of “science” is that of a kindergarten student.

You better stick with mythology Spider, it suits you much better. You’ve made a choice to live in the dark ages, so why not just stick with that choice instead of pretending that you didn’t make it? Trying to drag science back to the dark ages is utterly ridiculous.

You do all of this to support a story that has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.

How absurd is that?

Science doesn’t need to prove anything to people who believe in unproven mythologies. They obviously have no clue what proof even means or what it’s intrinsic value is. They aren’t interested in truth, all they are interested in is perpetuating mythology at all cost, even if it requires rejecting observations.

Evolution is not a ‘theory’. It’s an observed phenomenon. Life on earth evolved.

Moreover, you claimed in an earlier post that before Adam and Eve sinned the world was perfect and there was no such thing as death. Even tossing evolution aside, it’s crystal clear that life existed on earth long before humans came on the scene and many of them ate each other and they all died. So death and imperfection where around long before man came on the scene whether evolution is true or not.

You’re claim that scientific conclusions must be reproducible in the lab is simply not true. The science of astronomy has always been an observational science. Almost all of astrophysics stands on observations alone. The universe is the laboratory for the astrophysicists, just as the earth is the laboratory for the paleontologists.

I don’t care what you believe in Spider. But you obviously know nothing of science.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_theory.htm

===============================================================
A scientific theory must:
1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
3. involve reproducible results
4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant
===============================================================

See number three? That is covered by your astrophyicist strawman. Everybody who looks into space sees the same thing. One of the basic facts of Evolution is that it cannot be observed. The few cases which evolutionists clam that they have observed evolution are demonstrably false.

1) Peppered moths. Both kinds of moths existed from the first experiment to the last, nobody denys that. The entire study was flawed, because they went by sightings of the moths during the day, while moths are (as any child can tell you) nocturnal. The pictured moths in the study were dead and had been glued to the tree. The few moths observed to be eaten had been captured at night and released during the day, making their natural coloration a disadvantage. Normally, the moths hide during the day, so their coloration makes no difference on if they are eaten or not. Some areas saw growth in light colored moths and others saw growth in dark colored moths, thus the study was too small to prove anything.

2) Anti-biotic resistance. Several explorers were frozen to death in the Artic and over a hundred years later, their bodys were recovered. Scientists wanted to observe the evolutionary change of bacteria living in the dead bodies verses the same species living today. What they discovered is that the explorers had anti-biotic resistant bacteria living in their bodies, but the explorers had lived BEFORE anti-biotics were invented. The truth about anti-biotic resistance in bacteria is that the resistance is due to a faulty gene, which renders the bacteria less successful than their non-resistant brothers. But when their brothers are destroyed by an anti-biotic, the faulty bacteria survive and thrive. Not because they are better evolved, but because they have a defect that is helpful at the time. If someone were to handcuff everyone in a town and take them to be killed, the man with no arms would survive. It wouldn't mean he had some advantage that made him able to survive, it would mean that he had a disadvantage that proved useful in one case.

3) Polyploidy. Polyploidy isn't evolution. The definition of evolution directly refutes that polyploidy is evolution. If polyploidy is evolution, then so is Down's Syndrome. Since we know that polyploidy and Down's syndrome are both caused by errors in initial cell division, we know that they are NOT evolution.