Have you ever wonder about the existent of GOD?

The funny thing about disucssing something with you is that you quote me as saying something I did not say and then go on to try to refute what I did not say.

I never once tried to prove, or even allude to the idea that evolution is nonsense. In fact I said that the process of evolution is a fact.

Once again, I never denied "that it happened to the first ever single cell life form". Where did I say that?

Then perhaps you are god, eh?

Here you go putting words into my keyboard. Everyone has the right to their own belief as I have already said in an earlier post. You are free to believe whatever you want. Everyone's beliefs deserve respect.

Why can't you just stick to what is being said instead of making these posts saying that I said something which I did not and then arguing against that. Where is the logic in any of that?

If you want to refute what I say then refute what I actually type with my own keyboard here

 

You said it was a leap of faith to assume that single cell life evolved in to all the species we see today. There is no faith involved. It makes perfect sense that if species are evolving today that the first life would also have been evolving, and given it's simplicity would have been evolving at a phenomenal rate. So why would it be a leap of faith when the rules of evolution allow for single cell life to mutate and change in to every species we have today over time?

Here you said that there are different theories of evolution that prove each other wrong. if you are for evolution and believe it to be fact why are you so intent on muddying the waters?

So who were you referring to when you spoke about people being "attacked" for their opinion?

 

Good! Now you are confronting things I have actually said now we are getting somewhere.

To make myself more clear here is what I believe and understand about evolution:

Evolution is the process of adaptation and change whereby species can change into different species. That is a proven fact. BUT how the process of evolution got to where it is today and how the present life forms were affected by it is theory. The idea that man evolved from a single celled organism is theory. The idea may have a lot of evidence and you may believe it fully, but that does not make it a fact. And yes, experts in the field of evolution disagree on a lot of different aspects - I never said that they did not agree on the basic concepts.

Faith, by the way, means believing in something that cannot be seen or proven. Therefore if you believe that man evolved from a single celled organism it is an example of faith, but faith in science.

You attacked me by claiming I said things which I did not . If you want to discuss something with someone at least stay on track with what thy actually say.

 

Man was begotten by cheese. Go forth and be conquered.

 

See the problem i have is with the rationale that while you accept that animals do evolve to create more complex organisms you disagree that this in it's self is evidence that we evolved from a single cell organism.

If we take the laws of evolution and completely reverse them we would see that humans and chimps devolved in to the ancestor we shared, that would devolve to a tree dwelling mammal, which would in turn devolve in to a ground dwelling burrowing mammal, So if we continue this cycle of devolution it stands to reason that eventually, given enough time, we would arrive at the simplest form of life possible. Which is a single celled organism.

How can you believe in evolution without accepting that evolution in it's self is evidence that we once were the simplest form of life possible?

 

Here we go again. Man, you are unbelievable. Where did I disagree with it being evidence? Of course it is evidence - I said there was no proof.

How can you continue to argue against things that I didnt even say? I thnk it is hilarious and I definitely don't take someone very seriously when they can't even stick to the discussion with making false quotations.

 

How is the fact of evolution it's self not proof that we evolved from a single cell organism? Look at my example of devolution. The model of devolution (reversed evolution) would take us back to a single cell organism though a slow and gradual process of reduced complexity. Evolution it's self is proof that we originated at a single cell organism.

 

There you have it then. Now proclaim that to all the world and we can get a lot of confusions and disagreements straightened out.

I dont think you understand what proof actually means. Proof means that there can be no doubt and that anyone who looks at the proof will come to the same agreement.

This entire discussion all boils down to the difference between proof and evidence.

I also note that even though I have asked several times you do not reply to explain why you feel that you have to misquote me in order to have a discussion.

You have also made the assumption that I am a Christian -was that because I say I believe in God?

What if the Anunnaki came down to the earth and created humans and other living things with genetic manipulations?

 

Through out history there have been hundreds of gods made up by other cultures. If there is at least one real god out there, how can any one possibly say that they know witch one it is?

 

I think you have exposed yourself as being intent on doing nothing other than arguing the meanings of words.
I gave you proof and all you chose to do is fight some tiny battle proclaiming that it's not proof because evidence isn't proof. The fact of evolution proves we originated from a single cell organism, if it doesn't, Explain how it doesn't or stop posting. Explain how evolution can produce increased complexity in one direction and not reduced complexity in the other. The fact of increased complexity proves that if evolution was revered it would cause reduced complexity. Enough reduced complexity and we would arrive at the simplest form of life possible, A single cell.

 

And you seem intent on ignoring the meaning of words

You still havent explained why you feel the need to misquote me.....

 

We're all Devo!

 

Explain why reversed evolution wouldn't result in reduced complexity.
I'm not going to stop asking this question until you answer it.

 

Let's just end this and say goodbye. You quote me saying things I have never said. You refuse to answer a question I have asked you several times yet you demand that I answer your question.

Im just wasting time and wondering if you are a teenager.

 

So you don't know then?

 

Devolution is a scientifically recorded, backed by evidence, absolute natural and currently happening... fact.

Indeed, the human race is the largest example of Devolution.

Are we not men? We are Devo.

 

Lawl, you two bitch about everything.

 

Have you stopped taking your meds again?

 

How about this. You take a domesticated horse and you leave him in the wilderness. Come back in a couple of years and you will see the horse become wild again. Wouldn't this example prove that over time we don't actually progress (opposite of evolution which is moving forward) but regress.

Wouldn't this prove (just as much as the theory of evolution) that evolution couldn't happen? I reckon given more and more time, the horse will become more and more wild and definitely not move forward.

 

So the horse adapts to survive in it's new surroundings and you see that as a regression? To me that is a perfect example of how natural selection works. What happens to the animals that can't adapt? They die. And what can't dead animals do? Reproduce.

So what we would get from this situation is a second generation of horses that are genetically more suited to the environment than the previous.