If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

Exactly. None of them had any clue how electrons began, yet their understanding of how electrons interact led to computers. Likewise, evolution only describes how life becomes other life. It doesn't matter how the first life began.

 

That's a cop out. It is necessary for your religion to be true.

 

Exactly. From a scientific viewpoint, Poodles and Cocker Spaniels are no different than blonds and brunettes.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that is a non-sequitur.

 

I'm glad we finally got that straight.

Actually, if two dogs gave birth to a pony, that would be evidence of a miracle, which would work in your favor.

 

My facial muscles are all reasonably relaxed.

Nothing about evolution is a "no brainer" to me.

I'm confident that the checks and balances built into our scientific process work. Mistakes get made. However, they get fixed.

 

Just as if a cow gave birth a 99% cow 1% whale.

 

Evolution and adaptation are the same thing so it is both.

 

You will have to explain in your allegory where the concepts of good ego and bad ego arose. Right in the middle of you explanation you start to talk about keeping the good ego and getting rid of the bad ego but up to that part of your explanation the ego is just a whole. Where did the part acceptable to God and the part that is unacceptable come into being?

 

If you understood anything about genetics, you'd understand why that statement is dumb.

For instance you are 100% human but also 96% Chimpanzee. Hell, you're about 40% houseplant.

 

Pick one. They are different terms.

 

But they are the same thing according to the Theory of Evolution, so I don't have to pick anything.

 

As I stated earlier, it seems everyone on this thread is a few decades or even a few centuries behind the current science.

The DNA 96% chimp thing was way back in the 1980's when DNA was first being decoded and was based on a 3% slice of the DNA sequence. DNA codes for proteins that are common to all living things.

The last abstract I read, humans and chimps share less than 70% DNA code, humans and bananas share a little less than 65% DNA. Could we have just as easily evolved from a banana?

Come back after you have read more than what you were taught in grade school. Ger current.

 

It's called the theory of evolution not theory of adaptation. So lets say evolution is evolution and adaptation is adaptation. Andes Indians and Inuit Eskimos adapt to their environment, they did not evolve to their environment.

Change over time is not in dispute. One kind of animal changing into another kind of animal is ludicrous.

 

Except they are the same thing. Evolution is made up of adaptations.

 

Considering that experiment to be any level of indication against abiogenesis is just plain ludicrous.

It does NOTHING to recreate the conditions or the time available for abiogenesis - billions of years, different and changing earthly environment.

On top of that, boiling is NOT an adequate sterilization methodology. So, Pasteur 's experiment wouldn't have proven anything even if life DID arise!
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/dtc/primsurg/docbook/html/x518.html

Where do you get this nonsense of yours? I'd advise that you consider new sources.

 

That shows that there is a common ancestor to humans and bananas, as the theory of evolution informs us.

You realize that is not a surprise, right?

 

Can you explain why you, like so many others who don't read God's word in a way except to twist it, take things out of context?

 

FIne, have it your way. Linking an absurd theory with one that is accepted does not make the former viable.

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

- - - Updated - - -

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

- - - Updated - - -

The transmission from a Chrysler will fit into a Dodge. Does that prove they both evolved from a Desoto? Or, does it prove they had a common designer?

 

Many (including myself) have provided you parts of the evidence you continuously request and you proceed to completely ignore it...thus do I for one no longer even bother. As for your Chrysler question, the answer would be BOTH. Many parts of the current car can easily be traced back to earlier versions in both technology and styling within the company that made them.

That is actually a pretty good analogy and I applaud you for thinking of it...did not think you had it in you.

 

No one has provided any scientific evidence. Conjecture, opinions, suppositions, debunked myths, are all I have ever been given by ya'll.

- - - Updated - - -

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

 

Once again, that is not what evolution says.

 

Not exactly. Individuals adapt. Populations evolve.

 

Explain the process either decade by decade or century by century or millennia by millenia, of a fully formed perfectly adapted cow changing into a whale. What would be the first "adaptation" and why would it change? Make this or your own explanation as your best case for evolution.

 

It isn't a myth; evolution is a fact. It is only the Origin of Species that is controversial.