frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 bh weve been here a hundred replys ago,we know that the evoloutionary scientists claim macro evo is the origins of man,an its been accepted an put in our childrens textbooks,right now in uk our primary kids are being taught this,its a shambles, even tho theres no scientific evidence for it,what are they doing this for simple its there agenda to mould the next generation,an get rid of god,an so the children fall into place for the new order coming soon, Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,788 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Of course it is fella.... because controlling the masses with religious bullshit was such a failure. Change of kind eh... another creationist bastardisation. Tell me, what's the difference between species and 'kind'? I don't want an example, I want a logical definition so I can give you a logical scientific answer. Edited November 20, 2014 by Born Hunter Link to post Share on other sites
Truther 1,579 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 At one time I did think that it was possible that we had been visited by people from outer space. Now I don't think so, reason being, if visitors from outer space had the technology to get here, that would point to a far superior knowledge base. If they then, as some believe, bred with the most humanoid animals on earth. Should there have been a bigger jump in human comprehension, should we have seen almost modern day understanding even back then. As they would have been able to travel intergalactic to get here. Makes sense to me but I have had a few. TC You have to look at the reasons a superior race would create/alter us TC, there's only one logical reason and that's as workers, they would only need a certain amount of intelligence in workers to mine, or build, if they can use genetics to create us its possible they could also "limit" our intelligence, its one theory why we only command about 10% of our big brains, having a brain that size and not using 90% of it makes no sense at all? Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 born lad could you be a bit clearer lad of course what? lad its not a dig at you its the world leaders pushing this agenda,an we know they cant be trusted Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 lad who said we only use ten% of our brain? lad I mean a kind to be the cat family or the dog family or snake family or the monkey family, they al produce after their KIND,like the bible says. now species I would say is the variation witin the kind like the snake family,eg an adder or brown or cobra thats the species witin the kind. an what do they produce affter their kind a SNAKE I dont know how you cant see that bh Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 ive been threw this already,an I woulnt be arsed to do it again,you no my stance on it,i love science but the macro evo origin of man tripe thats been fed down the worlds throat is not SCIENTIFIC,it has never been seen or observed an you need faith to beleive so I would say its a phony deceptive religon jmo tho 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Truther 1,579 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Every scientist i've ever listened to says about 10% Fraz, i don't just believe everything scientists say mate, i look into things, but 10% seems to be accepted by everyone? And they have CAT scanners and such that can actually see and record brain activity now, i doubt its bollocks tbh? Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,788 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Foxes make foxes and wolves make wolves but they're both allegedly of the same 'kind' according to your sketchy bible science! I'm still not getting a definition of kind, just more examples.... Is it any surprise that evolutionary biologists do not recognise the creationist science of 'macro/micro evolution'? Tell me biologically what is the defining difference? Bearing in mind foxes make foxes and wolves make wolves, what biologically is different between a wolf evolving into a fox or whatever or a cat (which in the absence of a scientific definition I am having to assume you consider a different 'kind')? Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 no bother lad,i was researching the brain recently an the neuro surgeon explained the brain an each part had a function,funny that lad il research it more see what I can fi.d la Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 born mate your trying to complicate things when its simple,im not a scientist,an the bibl is clear an simple its the scientists that complicate it an muddy the waters,who gives a fook biological explanation when its not needed every animal belongs to a kind which have diff variations ie species depending were they went what they ate an what the weather was like. I dont argue that the wolf could be the ancestor of fox cyote our pet dogs,thats logical but when they say the banana an the wolf have a common anceator im outa here thats just stupid Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,788 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 So you accept that creationist 'science' can't be explained with very clear definitions like proper science? And you call the leading theory of biology "unscientific"! If you are unable to break down your theory into simple scientific logical definitions, then it is not a theory but gibberish. Link to post Share on other sites
tinytiger 840 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 science amounts to the amount of hypotheses weve yet to disprove,,probably on a similar footing to god there id say,,philosophers have been devbating this questuion for the last few thousand years and were still none the wiser-theyd have been better off getting drunk Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 dog =canine cat =feline kinds your trying to lure me down the path of everything is related from the same ancestor when everyone knows what do you get when these pairs breed human man human woman =human baby feline tiger an tigress = feline baby canine dog an bitch = canine pup so bh why would animals(kids when you hear millions of years ago you no a fairytale is starting long ago an far away)millions of yrs ago be able to produce other than there kind when us evolved animals cant do it now? think about that Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,788 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 HA! Again, more examples and no definitions! Avoiding any hint of science! You can't breed a wolf with a fox, but they're allegedly of the same 'kind'. You can't breed a wolf with a tiger, but they're allegedly of different 'kind'. So explain to me, what is this 'kind'? Define it with science/logic, not isolated examples. I can't answer your question because you do not understand what you mean by this creationist 'science' of 'kind'! Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 who said you cant breed a wolf with a fox,sure theres cyote wolf matings an tiger lion matings. I havent a clue lad so could you give me scientific explanation for species bearing in mind theres 8 diff definitions Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts