Evolutionists

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jan 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i see where you are going wrong. you are looking at it as if man was already fully evolved except without one vital part of him in tact. obviously this would mean extinction for his kind if this were actually the case, but its not. before hands what did man do? to put it simply, man didn't exist. the earlier ancestors of primates were quadrupedal mammals who didn't need hands to survive. the advent of the bipedal primate freed up the hands and allowed for more distinct digits with more complex uses, namely the creation and use of tools.
    test
  2. SpillnMoney

    SpillnMoney Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    #2 quote of the year. We live with the evidence of a force thats unseen yet confirm its gravity and thats a fact. Evolution is a theory based on skeletal differences in ONE species over a long period of time. They speculating. Thats waht they do. Evolution is the flagship theory in a scientific aspect to provide any alternative of the creation of humanity. They are looking for answers but leave the idea of God completely out of the arguement.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  3. SpillnMoney

    SpillnMoney Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    Also how do you go from unconsious to its being, to being conscious of its consiousness.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  4. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    evolution is based on skeletal differences in ONE species over a long period of time? question: have you ever read ANY sort of literature on evolution that was not written by christian apologetics or proponents of intelligent design? either a) you're lying about evolution to make it seem less credible or b) you're completely clueless as to what the actual evidence is that the theory is based on. i've given you a link (several times) to a site that lays out quite a detailed overview of the evidence in favor of common descent. several times i have posted this link and each time you have ignored it. one of those times was in this very thread. did you take the time to check it out? if not, then why not? are you afraid of looking into the actual evidence? if its as dismissible as you claim it is then there should be nothing to fear. at the very least you should try to display some basic grasp of the theory before you try to discredit it.
    test
  5. SpillnMoney

    SpillnMoney Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    No sometimes i just cant view some links on this phone. Its a piece of shit. It wont even let me type after a certain amount of characters. But im pretty sure ur talking about the primitive humanoid skeletons theyve found like "annie" or the ones in asia right?
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  6. SpillnMoney

    SpillnMoney Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    Like i dont have a problem with saying say 2 of the same kinda bird begins breeding now theres 10. 5 fly over to another place and small changes do happen over time theyll adapt to the new climate, food, enviornment, essentially creating a new type of bird from the original. I do not think we have enough evidence to say that a monkey over time no matter where they go or what they do will ever become a human. Just like a elephant given the same situation wont change into a moose. The closest thing we have is a tadpole turning into a frog, or maybe a lizard to a snake. The primitive humans bones we have are human, but they are just that, primitive.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  7. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    no, to be honest the theory hinges on a lot more than just 'primitive human fossils'. you know darwin never even gets into the evolution of man from monkeys in his book right? so to say that the entire theory is constructed simply as an alternative theory for the origins of man, is an outright lie. it's an assessment of the origins of species, of what this classification is and how the distinction between two species might arise through natural forces.

    i don't have time to give a detailed response right now because i have to leave but i will come back and post some of the most basic evidence in the thread itself so you can see, tomorrow.
    test
  8. SpillnMoney

    SpillnMoney Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    Im open. Lay it on me when u can. An for the record im not 100% saying it couldnt have happened given the expanse of time the earth has been habitable i just think there are flaws that for some reason they cant or wont answer.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  9. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    You'd probably be much easier to speak with if you weren't only posting here via your phone. I can see how being on a phone is limiting.
    test
  10. SpillnMoney

    SpillnMoney Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    Ya it suckks. An it aint like a 3 g thing either, so when i post on my payback name its logged in from my girls phone lol
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)