Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn’t take millions of years for animals to become extinct.
 
If you want bones of the failures, those that no longer survived died, go to a museum.
 
RandomAlias said:
I’m gonna shake the dust from my sandals and climb back up the tree from which my ancestors descended (and figuratively ascended). Wake me for Part 5.
Click to expand...
No, it we be 4.1 unless you want to wait until 5.0 its up to you. 🙂
 
The failures were around for a very long time according to the museums. The problem being posed is that something changed. The failures were successful until they died off. Animals are dying off now.
 
mVitus said:
If you want bones of the failures, those that no longer survived died, go to a museum.
Click to expand...
The McChicken has been very successful, I don’t see how you can say dinosaurs were failures.
 
Last edited:
But what is the point you’re trying to make? I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not contradicting evolution at all.
 
Look at it this way: evolution did nothing. No changes were occurring. Dinosaurs did not become birds. Birds were always birds. The proposition that Time X Unguided Blind Chance = Novel organs and novel creatures, is not supported by anything. For example, there were dinosaurs. Now there aren’t. Long periods of time is not an answer.
 
What is? Extinct creatures were what they were, nothing more. They weren’t on their way to being something else. Saying a dinosaur became a bird is a bit of a stretch. You could substitute dinosaur with humans became birds. At least some of us did. The mists of millions of years seems more like a smoke screen - not a fact.
 
mVitus said:
It’s supported by the fossil record.
Click to expand...
Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
 
The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.
 
Why would anyone believe in Evolution? The dude ransacked my house and tried to hurt my family.
Then I saw him with the devil, they were plotting some sort of witchery with kids down the street!
Evolution is NOT to be trusted. He’s a liar and a thief. /jk
 
rossum said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Yay! Part 4!

Boy, this thread has evolved! 🤣
Click to expand...
Evolved? No, it has reincarnated. Every time it dies it is born again and again and again… 😀

rossum
Click to expand...
It never dies a natural death… only a technical one .
 
The only thing these threads have proven (apart from the fact that evolution is true) is that evolution is the most hated and feared scientific theory…
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
The only thing these threads have proven (apart from the fact that evolution is true) is that evolution is the most hated and feared scientific theory…
Click to expand...
What is the second most hated and feared scientific theory ?
 
Evolution is the only one it would seem. But the sheer age of the universe causes some hands to tremble a bit.

I guess the idea that these theories are lies concocted by atheists to deceive the faithful gives some people a false sense of comfort at least.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Evolution is the only one it would seem. But the sheer age of the universe causes some hands to tremble a bit.

I guess the idea that these theories are lies concocted by atheists to deceive the faithful gives some people a false sense of comfort at least.
Click to expand...
Cancer is hated and feared by me, Evolution …hardly.It’s more like telling me the moon is made of cheese.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top