Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution and Santa Claus/ /Commonalities of Illusions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John MacNeil" data-source="post: 440615" data-attributes="member: 4929"><p>Sadly, as expected, some of those proponents of the evolutionary theory have failed to grasp the significant opportunity to discuss their evolution theory and instead attempt to divert the discussion to the clarification of terms. So that this can be clarified once and for all, I will type up the pertinent definitions;</p><p></p><p>--Species: a class of individuals or objects having certain distinguishing attributes in common, given a common name and comprised with other similar classes in a more comprehensive grouping called a GENUS --Webster's c.1999</p><p></p><p>--Race: any of the different varieties of human beings distinguished by a) physical traits such as hair, eyes, skin color, body shape, etc. b) blood types c) genetic code patterns d) all their inherited characteristics which are unique to their isolated breeding population --Webster's c.1999</p><p></p><p>These definition of race and species describe the same traits. The larger grouping is the genus;</p><p></p><p>--Genus: a major category in the classification of animals, plants, etc., ranking above a species and below a family: it can include one species or many similar species --Webster's c.1999</p><p></p><p>I didn't address this defining of terms earlier because I thought anyone who didn't understand how I used them would have the common sense to look them up and find out what they were. Apparently, the young evolutionists are so indoctrinated to being told what to believe that they lack the ability to do even the minimalist research for themselves.</p><p></p><p>A note about the phylogenic tree as portrayed by the Smithsonian Institution: The Smithsonian Institution endorses the evolution theory and their chart is printed to reflect that belief. That chart is therefore conjecturable supposition whereas the photographs of skulls are of recovered physical fossil evidence. I base my analysis on the physical evidence and not on the suppositional chart drawn up by the Smithsonian's artists.</p><p></p><p>When the skulls are studied for even a short length of time, it becomes glaringly obvious that the bone structure is radically different between Homo Sapiens and all the other specimens. If the Homo Sapiens evolved from any of the other represented specimens, then there would be numerous intermediate genetic variations required between the Homo Sapiens and any of those other skull. If such variant natural selective specimens existed before Homo Sapiens evolved to their present form, then we would have found evidence of them. But we have found no such evidence and what we know for sure, that is scientifically, is that Homo Sapiens are radically different than all other specimens. This tells us, realistically, without having to rely on any other theory or without having to view the evidence in any other way than scientifically, that the evidence does not support Homo Sapiens evolving from any other known fossil specimen found on this planet. Therefore the theory of evolution cannot be correct because we are the prime example that proves a disconnection from the stated belief of a continuous evolvement of all life on the planet from a single reference frame.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John MacNeil, post: 440615, member: 4929"] Sadly, as expected, some of those proponents of the evolutionary theory have failed to grasp the significant opportunity to discuss their evolution theory and instead attempt to divert the discussion to the clarification of terms. So that this can be clarified once and for all, I will type up the pertinent definitions; --Species: a class of individuals or objects having certain distinguishing attributes in common, given a common name and comprised with other similar classes in a more comprehensive grouping called a GENUS --Webster's c.1999 --Race: any of the different varieties of human beings distinguished by a) physical traits such as hair, eyes, skin color, body shape, etc. b) blood types c) genetic code patterns d) all their inherited characteristics which are unique to their isolated breeding population --Webster's c.1999 These definition of race and species describe the same traits. The larger grouping is the genus; --Genus: a major category in the classification of animals, plants, etc., ranking above a species and below a family: it can include one species or many similar species --Webster's c.1999 I didn't address this defining of terms earlier because I thought anyone who didn't understand how I used them would have the common sense to look them up and find out what they were. Apparently, the young evolutionists are so indoctrinated to being told what to believe that they lack the ability to do even the minimalist research for themselves. A note about the phylogenic tree as portrayed by the Smithsonian Institution: The Smithsonian Institution endorses the evolution theory and their chart is printed to reflect that belief. That chart is therefore conjecturable supposition whereas the photographs of skulls are of recovered physical fossil evidence. I base my analysis on the physical evidence and not on the suppositional chart drawn up by the Smithsonian's artists. When the skulls are studied for even a short length of time, it becomes glaringly obvious that the bone structure is radically different between Homo Sapiens and all the other specimens. If the Homo Sapiens evolved from any of the other represented specimens, then there would be numerous intermediate genetic variations required between the Homo Sapiens and any of those other skull. If such variant natural selective specimens existed before Homo Sapiens evolved to their present form, then we would have found evidence of them. But we have found no such evidence and what we know for sure, that is scientifically, is that Homo Sapiens are radically different than all other specimens. This tells us, realistically, without having to rely on any other theory or without having to view the evidence in any other way than scientifically, that the evidence does not support Homo Sapiens evolving from any other known fossil specimen found on this planet. Therefore the theory of evolution cannot be correct because we are the prime example that proves a disconnection from the stated belief of a continuous evolvement of all life on the planet from a single reference frame. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution and Santa Claus/ /Commonalities of Illusions
Top
Bottom