Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 May 20
20:45
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
John Richardson invited a evolution expert onto his show and asked him about the future of evolution. Evolution is supposedly an unguided natural process that takes a naturalistic course. Taking hundreds and thousand of yrs for incremental changes? The expert talked about two outcomes. Both are transhumanist. Rreplacing parts of us with machines, cyborg android stuff, and also the possible uniting of artificial intelligence with man. The other outcome is to use gene editing to make us live longer and be stronger. Hopefully both out comes make us all immortal. This plainly is knot evolution. It's the application of a guided mind using technology. A scientific wet dream.
The bible says man lived a long life at the start. Disease came about, and man's life span was shortened, damage to DNA, this is mocked by atheists and other beliefs. Yet a scientist tells us we might achieve immortality? This is a double standard. God is not a man. He is immortal. His tech has been astound eternally. He therefore is capable to making people live forever. We have discovered a few tricks by observing his creation for a scant few centuries.
God and genesis tells us that the sserpentine angel said. .. You will be looks God, knowing good and evil. We chopped on the fruit,the apple, and we learned . Fire,the wheel. Propulsion,farming, Upton the atomic age. We aspire to be like God. We now say we might live forever? And that the bible is a fairytale? For a man to live 900 yrs is impossible.
I have lived over fifty yrs. I have learned a few things. Picked hip some skills. Living 900 yrs means you wwould be highly educated. There are gaps in the bible story. Seth the appointed son. Replaced Cain and abel. But Adam and eve had many children. Over 900 yrs. Fertile for two hundred yrs? The bible tells the daughters of eve existed. Seth is important because he leads to Noah, agraham,Moses, Jesus. The rest of the family tree is not in the story. Not the focus.
You watch a tom cruise movie and halfway thru tom goes into a flower shop? He pays the cashier and walks out. Then the rest of the film focuses on Daphne the cashier and her adventures in flower selling. You would say... Wtf. What happened to Tom and the stolen missile codes. Seth had brothers and sisters.
I bring this up because the deliberate ignorance of atheism is evident. Thousands of bloggers ask if Cain killed Abel then who did he marry? 200 sons and daughters with unflawed DNA. they have children. Yes it's incest. Their children have kids. Within a hundred yrs you have thousands of people. Incest today is taboo. Because it breeds abnormal cchildren because DNA IS DAMAGED . Some people do marry their sisters and brothers. We say perverts. Biology wills out. American pie.
The bible says man lived a long life at the start. Disease came about, and man's life span was shortened, damage to DNA, this is mocked by atheists and other beliefs. Yet a scientist tells us we might achieve immortality? This is a double standard. God is not a man. He is immortal. His tech has been astound eternally. He therefore is capable to making people live forever. We have discovered a few tricks by observing his creation for a scant few centuries.
God and genesis tells us that the sserpentine angel said. .. You will be looks God, knowing good and evil. We chopped on the fruit,the apple, and we learned . Fire,the wheel. Propulsion,farming, Upton the atomic age. We aspire to be like God. We now say we might live forever? And that the bible is a fairytale? For a man to live 900 yrs is impossible.
I have lived over fifty yrs. I have learned a few things. Picked hip some skills. Living 900 yrs means you wwould be highly educated. There are gaps in the bible story. Seth the appointed son. Replaced Cain and abel. But Adam and eve had many children. Over 900 yrs. Fertile for two hundred yrs? The bible tells the daughters of eve existed. Seth is important because he leads to Noah, agraham,Moses, Jesus. The rest of the family tree is not in the story. Not the focus.
You watch a tom cruise movie and halfway thru tom goes into a flower shop? He pays the cashier and walks out. Then the rest of the film focuses on Daphne the cashier and her adventures in flower selling. You would say... Wtf. What happened to Tom and the stolen missile codes. Seth had brothers and sisters.
I bring this up because the deliberate ignorance of atheism is evident. Thousands of bloggers ask if Cain killed Abel then who did he marry? 200 sons and daughters with unflawed DNA. they have children. Yes it's incest. Their children have kids. Within a hundred yrs you have thousands of people. Incest today is taboo. Because it breeds abnormal cchildren because DNA IS DAMAGED . Some people do marry their sisters and brothers. We say perverts. Biology wills out. American pie.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 58
|
By:
'The future of evolution' is guesswork.
The past of evolution has overwhelming evidence. |
|
By:
Living 900 yrs means you would be highly educated
would have forgotten everything around 800 years or so early once dementia had set in imo. Also, look closely between your fingers and toes, evolution is staring at us, they're webbed together, the remnants of our amphibian past. |
|
By:
Sow me a dog that changed to a pig.
Animals appear without any precursors . Bats Spiders have been around longer than dinosaurs if you bbelieve the old age theory. Yet they are much the same. They exist in all conditions. It therefore must evolve? yet scientists say it's reached its apex, because it won't do as it is told? Thousands of sspecies all not improving? Dumb crocs. |
|
By:
There are fish that have changed into pigs (and dogs,and dinosaurs) over hundreds of millions of years.
Creationists seem to think a lineage not changing into a different species in within their own lifetime then that proves evolution can not be possible. |
|
By:
Of course spiders have evolved, into different species of spiders.
|
|
By:
New sscientist AMD nature magazine both site a mitochondrial eve as the ancestor of all humans.
Charles Darwins family all freemasons, Satanism. Google his grandfather, his father and freemasons. Edinburgh and Derby lodges. Would you aaccept science from Satan. |
|
By:
Saw a documentary a few years ago about some Scottish guy who has been alive since the 1500's. Had been taking on new identities every so many years. Interesting stuff. Cant remember what it was called.
|
|
By:
They worship creation rather than the creator. St.Paul saidvthis two thousand yrs ago. Animal worship. Blue planet. Darwin and the priests of eEgypt his predecessors have dragged the animals morphing into better creatures through centuries. And changed the terminology to be scientific. It's bs pseudo science. It's being overturned . Many PhD biologists in thousands now say it cannot happen. Even Dawkins and Crick realize that evolution needs more time . So the mudpool would have to be on a distant planet? Panspermia. So how does a lfreform get from planet Mongo? To here? Whether it's a spore or Spock. The vast distances between solar ssystems will make that absurd, the scale is easy to see if we sbrink our solar system down to a cirule seven metres in diameter. The sun a pencil dot. The next solar system called aalpha centauri would be 4.5 miles away. We have trouble getting to mars at speed mars is a centimetre or two. Dawkins is a man with a half added biology degree from the ssixties talking about panspermia. Outside his field of expertise. They know life cannot form on earth. Using evolution. They refuse to yield to actual science from biologists who train in the minutte realms of cell anatomy.
|
|
By:
Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman alive in the world.
She is everyone's mother's, mother's, mother's etc mother × however many thousand generations. There will have been plenty of other woman alive the same time as her that were the ancestors of everyone alive today, but our descent from them is in some generations only through the male line, so the mitochondrial DNA link is broken. |
|
By:
They worship creation rather than the creator. St.Paul saidvthis two thousand yrs ago. Animal worship. Blue planet. Darwin and the priests of eEgypt his predecessors have dragged the animals morphing into better creatures through centuries. And changed the terminology to be scientific. It's bs pseudo science. It's being overturned . Many PhD biologists in thousands now say it cannot happen. Even Dawkins and Crick realize that evolution needs more time . So the mudpool would have to be on a distant planet? Panspermia. So how does a lfreform get from planet Mongo? To here? Whether it's a spore or Spock. The vast distances between solar ssystems will make that absurd, the scale is easy to see if we sbrink our solar system down to a cirule seven metres in diameter. The sun a pencil dot. The next solar system called aalpha centauri would be 4.5 miles away. We have trouble getting to mars at speed mars is a centimetre or two. Dawkins is a man with a half added biology degree from the ssixties talking about panspermia. Outside his field of expertise. They know life cannot form on earth. Using evolution. They refuse to yield to actual science from biologists who train in the minutte realms of cell anatomy.
|
|
By:
Real science generates real outcomes. Physics- stronger material. Microwaves. Exotic energies we harness. Atom bombs. Chemistry and biology too. Evolution is a philosophy , it's roots in Hinduism and Greek philosophy. It provides an excuse. Nothing more. You justify yourself and pagan nature.
|
|
By:
zorro - give it a rest, you aren't going to convince anyone to join your lot on here. You're better off talking drawings etc to foinavon
|
|
By:
Final argument... Go to youtube. Paul James Griffiths. Exposing the roots of Darwinism.
I challenge you to watch one hour of Christian ppropaganda. I have watched yrs on the bbc. From the seventies to now. I watched Dawkins and hitchens chew kud. If you are yellow. If you fear the truth. Give an excuse. You lose the argument. It is only a soul. Sell it to me. |
|
By:
Plenty of strong scientific proof of evolution.
No scientific proof of God, just plenty of stories. I am hedging my bets though just in case, Amen. |
|
By:
They tell us that we lost our tails evolving up from little snails, I say it is all just wind in sails....
|
|
By:
I'm an aethist, thank God.
|
|
By:
Rick and Morty. I AM. evolution propaganda again. Love this cartoon. Satan tells good jokes.
|
|
By:
wif a lishp
|
|
By:
K smartarse
If evolution is utter piffle explain Geordies! They were genetically bred to keeps the jocks out! |
|
By:
aye but they had to get Romans to help
|
|
By:
i think they were from Lazio
|
|
By:
Zorro, how’s the cave painting coming along?
I thought you’d chucked your hand in with all this after your last attempt at the bible code decipher resulted in another blank? |
|
By:
Capt Christopher Pike on duty. Beep.beep.beeeeeep.
Watch the little Christian historian in glasses, on youtube. Paul James Griffiths. Exposing the roots of Darwinism. Short lectrue about 50 minutes long. Or are yoh a yellow belly . I've watched James burke, Dawkins, Hitchens, and fifty other atheists in science telling me god is not real. I'm nof scared of your crap. So watch one dissenting voice. No excuses. Make an excuse and you are lying to yourself. A craven yellah bellied snake. Startrek discovery.. Spore drive?? Mushroom tech? Alice in wonderland is highlighted... One of the first multiverse forays? Down the wormhole into amother universe. They play out their fiction in convincing CGI. Everett was a student that dreamt up multiverse theory. after dc comics had been dishing it out in the early fifties? Fiction. |
|
By:
Capt Christopher Pike on duty. Beep.beep.beeeeeep.
Watch the little Christian historian in glasses, on youtube. Paul James Griffiths. Exposing the roots of Darwinism. Short lectrue about 50 minutes long. Or are yoh a yellow belly . I've watched James burke, Dawkins, Hitchens, and fifty other atheists in science telling me god is not real. I'm nof scared of your crap. So watch one dissenting voice. No excuses. Make an excuse and you are lying to yourself. A craven yellah bellied snake. Startrek discovery.. Spore drive?? Mushroom tech? Alice in wonderland is highlighted... One of the first multiverse forays? Down the wormhole into amother universe. They play out their fiction in convincing CGI. Everett was a student that dreamt up multiverse theory. after dc comics had been dishing it out in the early fifties? Fiction. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I have no doubt species evolve. Bigger/Smaller, sharper teeth, better vision, better digestive system etc.
I can see cats develop into sabre tooth cats and back down into smaller cats, mamooths into elephants and vice versa. But developing into new species from another i am sceptical. If everthing changes to adapt to its enviroment then why do we have such a diverse amount of different species who share the same habitat? Why do they all not diverge into the most succesful type of animal for that enviroment? Again, during a crossover there must be a time where different a new species is being formed from an existing one, we currently see no evidence of this. The platypus was long put up as a species in "transition" until ancient platypus skeletons where found with virtually no changes. Similar the penguin, was put up as a transition animal, but again ancient fossil finds suggest it has not changed much apart from getting smaller. Another unanswered question, how come Earth has only ever had 1 species evolve into shall we say super intellegent, able to look into the stars and ask the questions and develop technology way way in advance of anything else? If we come from Apes, and previous to that fish, why havent we had other animals evolve in a similar way? Ps if we evolve to suit the enviroment then we could do with wings to save on petrol costs and Co2 emmissions. Though i doubt in 2 million years we will evole to grow them. |
|
By:
Reasonable questions. I'll take them one at a time.
If everthing changes to adapt to its enviroment then why do we have such a diverse amount of different species who share the same habitat? Why do they all not diverge into the most succesful type of animal for that enviroment? They generally do but that involves more than one type of animal. In an ecosystem you can't have one animal that eats everything because, eventually, they'd have nothing to eat and would die of starvation. |
|
By:
I should have started earlier in your post.
Sabre tooth tigers didn't evolve from what we consider cats today (domestic cats, tigers, leopards, etc). They went off on a different branch and went bust. Mammoths and elephants aren't from the same evolutionary branch either but do have a common ancestor - they both did their own thing and we know which side had the better idea. |
|
By:
Again, during a crossover there must be a time where different a new species is being formed from an existing one, we currently see no evidence of this.
Not entirely sure what you mean by a crossover but if it's say a bird evolving from some reptile like thingy then there are fossils, just a tad older than me, that show the "crossover". |
|
By:
The platypus was long put up as a species in "transition" until ancient platypus skeletons where found with virtually no changes. Similar the penguin, was put up as a transition animal, but again ancient fossil finds suggest it has not changed much apart from getting small
Who said platypuses and penguins were examples of species in "transition". I'm not sure what a transition is - is it the same as a crossover? |
|
By:
mammoths suffered from genomic meltdown, diseases their most likely ending.
|
|
By:
Another unanswered question, how come Earth has only ever had 1 species evolve into shall we say super intellegent, able to look into the stars and ask the questions and develop technology way way in advance of anything else? If we come from Apes, and previous to that fish, why havent we had other animals evolve in a similar way?
There were other, shall we say, super intelligent **** species. It's not entirely certain but more than likely we bumped the others off. |
|
By:
h o m o species
|
|
By:
Ps if we evolve to suit the enviroment then we could do with wings to save on petrol costs and Co2 emmissions. Though i doubt in 2 million years we will evole to grow them.
Unlikely, we've gone down a different evolution branch to birds with all that entails - bone structure, weight, etc - we also find our arms and hands quite useful for doing stuff. |
|
By:
Again, during a crossover there must be a time where different a new species is being formed from an existing one, we currently see no evidence of this.
This takes tens of thousands of years so hardly gonna be something observable in human history. |
|
By:
Reasonable questions. I'll take them one at a time.
If everthing changes to adapt to its enviroment then why do we have such a diverse amount of different species who share the same habitat? Why do they all not diverge into the most succesful type of animal for that enviroment? They generally do but that involves more than one type of animal. In an ecosystem you can't have one animal that eats everything because, eventually, they'd have nothing to eat and would die of starvation. But evolution doesnt know this, or are you suggesting evolution has a quick think before it decides to make the changes? |
|
By:
Absolutely not.
|
|
By:
The platypus was long put up as a species in "transition" until ancient platypus skeletons where found with virtually no changes. Similar the penguin, was put up as a transition animal, but again ancient fossil finds suggest it has not changed much apart from getting small
Who said platypuses and penguins were examples of species in "transition". I'm not sure what a transition is - is it the same as a crossover? yes, if evolution can change one species into another species we must see some species in the middle of this crossover. Both Platypusses and Penguins have been put up as such animals in the crossover. However fossil remains show they have been the same for thousands if not millions of years, (apart from size reduction). So we do not seem to have any cross over species currently. This is very strange as evolution suggests crossover/transitions are both commom and relatively easy. |
|
By:
I'm sure there are many 'top predators' that "thought" fck me this is easy pickings and then went bust. We seem to be doing the same.
|