By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - I don't believe in evolution (very long post)

OoSnap said:

1. This is just one of many examples of evolutionists' making false predictions. The paper claimed that  the 16S ribosomal DNA from the Bacillus strain 2-9-3 is almost identical to modern one. You would also expect to evolve after 250 million years (supposedly) to another species. But didn't happen.

2. It shows once again evolutionists got it wrong. There is no such as "Junk DNA" or "non coding" DNA.


This is going to be my last reply to this thread as we'll just end up in circles, but I'm just going to re-iterate that this is how science works. Predictions aren't "false" if they're made with the best available information. When new data is discovered then previous hypotheses are updated and new predictions are made. It's a self-improving system and continues to give more information on evolution. Just because some of the earlier predictions were wrong doesn't disprove evolution.



Around the Network

Going to be a bit brutal here...

How about spending more time on pooling your effort into a short concise post about what you believe to be the best single piece of evidence? It works far better than the 5000 word Gish gallop of disjointed, unrelated quotes on a wide range of subjects you couldn't possibly have researched deeply enough yourself... (In fact, may I ask how much time do you spend researching evolution?)

Then again you'll probably take the fact that people who accept evolution have better things to do than refute hundreds of ill-sourced quotes as a "win", that's the only reason your post is so long.

If you genuinely thought evolution was false your post would be under 1000 words and you would probably stick to one subject you've researched well to make a coherent argument you feel fairly certain is correct.

A long post does not make it a good post.



That's okay. Many don't. Heck at one time everyone (and I mean everyone) thought the world was flat. Didn't make them any less wrong - and they were no doubt as equally sure as you.

Other than that comment I'm not getting suckered into another one of "these" threads.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

All I have to say is the following:

Denisova hominin
Homo antecessor
Homo cepranensis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo floresiensis
Homo gautengensis
Homo georgicus
Homo habilis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans)

That is all.



TC_Squared said:
All I have to say is the following:

Denisova hominin
Homo antecessor
Homo cepranensis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo floresiensis
Homo gautengensis
Homo georgicus
Homo habilis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans)

That is all.

gah, thank you!  "missing link" indeed. if history shows any sort of pattern we know it's only a matter of time before we find every link in the chain. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android