Sandsted
Sr. Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 275
- 1
I'll give you one little fact about evolution.
Take for instance your blood clotting. It takes 12 specific, and specifically ordered cemical reactions in the blood to clott. Evolution would say that the first animals only had one cemical reaction, ofcourse their blood doesn't clott so they get another and eventually we got all 12 and the ones with 12 survived.
If you don't have all 12 you bleed to death.
Quote from Darwin himself, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!" Good choice of words. All you need to be a believer in the religion of evolution is blind faith. Just take everything you are taught about the theory to be gospel truth. H.S. Lipson (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK) said, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
If you are a believer in evolution, answer this (please answer this). Did the first fish that crawled out of the ocean to become an animal have lungs or gills? If he had lungs (which were needed to breathe while on land), why did they evolve while he was underwater? If he had only gills (which were needed to survive while underwater), he wouldn't survive on land for more than two minutes. He also has another little problem. He needs to find a "she" who likewise decided to crawl up onto the land at the same time. She too needs to have lungs or she won't survive for two minutes. If he is the only one to make it to shore and to develope lungs, the new species of lungfish will die out when he does.
What about all these "missing links"? Nebraska Man was "scientifically" built up fromone tooth, which was later found to be froma pig. Java Man (found early in the last century) was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest was the work of the imagination of plaster of Paris.
Heidelberg Man was built up from a jawbone, a large chine section, and some eeth. Most scientists of the day have rejected it because it's similar to the jawbone found in modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe he's 250,000 years old. And don't look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious. After Piltdown Man celebrated his 500,000th birthday, his skull turned out to belong to a 600-year-old woman and his jaw to a modern ape. All evidence of Peking Man, who was said to have been around at the time of his friend and n\eighbor, Piltdown, has completely disappeared. He's been reclassified as human. New Guinea Man dates way back to 1970, while Cro-Magnon Man is described as being "one of the earliest and best established fossils...at least equal in physique and brain capacity to that of modern man" (a small brain). In other words, there's no difference.
Listen to this quote from a television program on the subject of evolution:
"To make any kind of juydgment, one has to appreciate how little evidence there is of all our ideas of human evolution...If we were to gather all the material on early human remains, from everywhere on earth, and bring it together in one place, it would scarcely fill a single coffin. There would be room to spare...The gaps are still huge. The missing "link" is more like a missing chain, stretching back longer than the period for which we had human fossils.
Darwin admitted that millions of missing links, transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.
The bible says that there is one kind of flesh for man and another kind of flesh for animals. It also says that every animal reproduces "according to its kind." Dogs have puppies, not kittens. Cat have kittens, not chickens. Horses have foals, not calves. It doesn't matter how many of thousands of years pass, elephants don't have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men.
I could go on forever, G. K. Chesterton was so right when he said, "The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
You want more, I'll give it later. I'll repeat myself, evolution isn't supported by science, it is a joke, when you study it thoroughly.
Take for instance your blood clotting. It takes 12 specific, and specifically ordered cemical reactions in the blood to clott. Evolution would say that the first animals only had one cemical reaction, ofcourse their blood doesn't clott so they get another and eventually we got all 12 and the ones with 12 survived.
If you don't have all 12 you bleed to death.
Quote from Darwin himself, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!" Good choice of words. All you need to be a believer in the religion of evolution is blind faith. Just take everything you are taught about the theory to be gospel truth. H.S. Lipson (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK) said, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
If you are a believer in evolution, answer this (please answer this). Did the first fish that crawled out of the ocean to become an animal have lungs or gills? If he had lungs (which were needed to breathe while on land), why did they evolve while he was underwater? If he had only gills (which were needed to survive while underwater), he wouldn't survive on land for more than two minutes. He also has another little problem. He needs to find a "she" who likewise decided to crawl up onto the land at the same time. She too needs to have lungs or she won't survive for two minutes. If he is the only one to make it to shore and to develope lungs, the new species of lungfish will die out when he does.
What about all these "missing links"? Nebraska Man was "scientifically" built up fromone tooth, which was later found to be froma pig. Java Man (found early in the last century) was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest was the work of the imagination of plaster of Paris.
Heidelberg Man was built up from a jawbone, a large chine section, and some eeth. Most scientists of the day have rejected it because it's similar to the jawbone found in modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe he's 250,000 years old. And don't look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious. After Piltdown Man celebrated his 500,000th birthday, his skull turned out to belong to a 600-year-old woman and his jaw to a modern ape. All evidence of Peking Man, who was said to have been around at the time of his friend and n\eighbor, Piltdown, has completely disappeared. He's been reclassified as human. New Guinea Man dates way back to 1970, while Cro-Magnon Man is described as being "one of the earliest and best established fossils...at least equal in physique and brain capacity to that of modern man" (a small brain). In other words, there's no difference.
Listen to this quote from a television program on the subject of evolution:
"To make any kind of juydgment, one has to appreciate how little evidence there is of all our ideas of human evolution...If we were to gather all the material on early human remains, from everywhere on earth, and bring it together in one place, it would scarcely fill a single coffin. There would be room to spare...The gaps are still huge. The missing "link" is more like a missing chain, stretching back longer than the period for which we had human fossils.
Darwin admitted that millions of missing links, transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.
The bible says that there is one kind of flesh for man and another kind of flesh for animals. It also says that every animal reproduces "according to its kind." Dogs have puppies, not kittens. Cat have kittens, not chickens. Horses have foals, not calves. It doesn't matter how many of thousands of years pass, elephants don't have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men.
I could go on forever, G. K. Chesterton was so right when he said, "The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
You want more, I'll give it later. I'll repeat myself, evolution isn't supported by science, it is a joke, when you study it thoroughly.
