Immortal4life

That is a very complex question, with many different answers. For starters though, a simple explanation would be that regardless of your beliefs, religious views, ideologies, etc. It is always good to know what competing ideologies are saying. Whether you want to attack them or defend them. Also, your beliefs about the nature of life, and origins of life, are going to have an effect on your beliefs about spirituality, morality, right and wrong, relationships, behavior, and the universe. In addition to that, I find the subjects of Dinosaurs and Birds to be intereting in themselves.

This- And This-

You should google the subject and check out many sites. Get a good idea of what the general trends are and what scientists in general are saying. What you will find is that they are moving away from specific claims of one species coming from another species, and more often now just say "they share an unknown common ancestor". I can discuss this issue futher in the future, but it is a little bit beyond the scope of this particular thread and encompasses other subjects such as "tree thinking".

Here is one of my favorite previews from "Icons of Eovlution". The popular "Embryo Charts" Articles http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_04.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a003726.html http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/17rec03.htm http://www.wayoflife.org/files/5ad85cdb636964524c34df654b199d16-726.html

Scientists in general, general trends, and general consensus. If you have specific objections to facts reported in specific articles, you can point them out specifically.

What a joke

Are you saying they are reporting inaccurate information, or giving false statements? Indeed it is very progressive, and ahead of it's time in a way, when it comes to scientific investigation. The Pureinsight article cites the Journal Nature.

It is probably true that scientists are moving more in this direction. The direction of saying, "we don't know what evolved out of what, we just say they have a common ancestor". The problem I have with this is that it's sort of a cop out. It is a way of saying, "there was a common ancestor species that existed somewhere at some point in time", yet without having to actually produce or show that common ancestor or "missing link". Yes

No. I would say religion should be questioned and thought through as well. I think these are accurate statements.

This is one of the most famous alleged pieces of evidence that many people have heard of. One of the most well known pieces of evidence related to this issue is the famous "Haeckel's Embryo Chart". The problem is, that the drawings are not accurate, and they are really only cartoons. In schools, they rarely mention that the drawings are "fudged", and are not drawn to be realistic like a photo.

More from Only One-

Technical explanation that can really open the mind and make you think.... from a man going by the name "Only One"

It is important to distinguish between the phenomena of gravity that can be observed, and the theory of gravity human mind's thought up to explain it.

I would say stay away from any alleged "tantra" or "karezza" methods you are talking about, don't touch yourself anymore, and find a chick as quickly as you can. If you believe in yourself and are assertive instead of being down on yourself you can make it happen. Your future health and hapiness depends on it.

I dunno about you guys, but my weekend was awesome Did someone mention aliens on this thread? Just get out there and be confident, you might surprise yourself

"Mutations" are retained through "Natural Selection" Video Clip- interviews, Molecular Biologists and Geneticists explaining why the theory of evolution through mutations is genetically impossible http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2098198/i/biochem.mov Or Youtube format, Molecular Biologist Professor Sermonti- Youtube, Geneticist Dr. Gertych- Fruit Flies and Morphology Homology and Genetics- Over 20 years ago clusters of genes, called Hox genes, were discovered. In fact, every species on earth is constructed with the same clusters of genes. The problem is, that these universal gene clusters manifest in different ways in different species, and are guiding different areas of the body in different species. So why is a Fly not a Horse? Why is one animal different from another? The reality is, no one knows. What we can say, is that DNA does not play the exact role that scientists once thought. The role of the dictator and programmer of all life and behaviour. Lol, an arm can never be a leg. Life was complex from the very beginning and different species are original. No evolution. Sorry, too bad so sad. This is because of the Universal Order of things and Law of Constitution, that everything is assigned it's proper place in the universe in perfect balance. Much in the same way that the number 2 is always the number 2, and can never lapse into the number 3, an antenna can never become a leg. It still appears organisms were complex from the beginning lol @ how evolutionists believe humans "evolved" from animals, interbreeding with the so called "common ancestor" or "missing link" of chimpanzees for 10,000 years straight- So now the obvious thing people are going to say is, what is your belief? If not evolution by natural selection, then what? Here is just an absolutely great explanation of a theory I sense has a lot of truth- http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about7594.html?hilit=Formations

That's basic common knowledge that evolution theory claims your ancestors were organisms more primitive than bacteria. I don't need to reference that! However, you can check the sweet videos in the OP, it's all in there.

Evolutionary theory states that organisms more primitive than bacteria evolved over a very long period of time into man.

This is called making the goal posts so wide as to not be able to miss. It's basically saying that, well in a million years anything can happen! But the fact remains, AIDS resistance plus millions of years can't make a lemur or monkey like creature into a man, nor can it make a bacteria evolve into a man.

Yeah throughout time scientists have claimed many adaptations as examples of speciation. Or as some people would explain it, examples of Micro-evolution as being evidence of Macro-evolution. We know that breeding and genetic drift can cause adaptation, but not that it can cause one animal to become another. The fact is, that adaptation can happen, but a new species requires so much completely new genetic information, and completely re-arranged, that mutation cannot account for a bacteria becoming a man as evolutionists claim happened. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria- There are no observed instances of speciation- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcJ6cEy2W0E

From what I read so far, that is a very interesting book. But I wouldn't call that true speciation. It is adaptation. It's in the same vain as all the things we have heard before, "peppered" moths, nylon eating bacteria that are still bacteria even though they adapted to eat nylon, drug resistant bacteria, genetic drift, and all these types of things. So it comes back to the same hole that has been there for years, that it's never been shown that there is any kind of genetic mechanism that would allow for evolution to progress to the point that it allegedly is supposed to have. A mutation is not a new gene, it is an altered copy of the same genes it came from.

Here's the thing about this.... No one denies that life has existed on this planet for a very long time, and throughout that time, the lifeforms that appeared on Earth indeed changed over that time. Some went extinct, and other new ones came along. Everyone can agree things changed on this planet over time. However, Darwin didn't write a book called "Change over Time". Darwin wrote a book called "The Origin of Species". Today, over a hundred years later, no genetic mechanism has been found that truly adequately explains how one kind of species can turn into another kind of species. One species becoming another has never been observed in a Laboratory either.

There is no doubt that is the ideal and goal, but the question is does it really eliminate all bias, or does it create it's own new set of biases? I don't buy into this idea that scientists are like these mavericks always trying to prove everything wrong and get garaunteed riches lol. Usually what they do, is latch onto someone's previous work and try to add one little original new thing to it, if they even bother attempting to do that much. What is science not "qualified" to answer? The truth is, in some areas, both religion and science are failing.

Evolutionists get tunnel vision. They can't take off their evolution glasses and see anything from any other perspective. In reality their mind's end up becoming closed off and limited. They so often start with the theory, and then interpret the data from that starting point.