Bill Gates: There's no scientific explanation of how it (the universe) came about!

[damobb2deep]

Let's get this straight..

Evolution is false, why?

If evolution is false, why are there layers that contain certain fossils?

You won't find human fossils, or dog fossils, in the layer that would contain fossils that which the dinosaurs are in. (different layers for each period)

Can you explain the sedimentary layers of which fossils are found in? That help us figure out their order if existence and line of evolution?

that has nothing 2 do with evolution... that would deal more with extinction...

 

[Shizlansky]

Thing is, birds did come from dinosaurs but pigs have never had one species down its evolutionary line that had wings, or even hinted at it.

That's why I'm saying it's silly, it's unheard of and is illogical.

but before came no other animal had feathers... so who is 2 say it cant happen 200 million years from now according 2 evolution...

under the laws of evolution it is possible for another creature to appear with feathers

but how if the creature didnt have feathers before?

Bruh, you can't be this stupid.

 

[Arya Tsaddiq]

Alex Jones, oh....

check this one out then:

Dinosaur Fossil 'Wasn't Supposed to Be There'

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossil-wasnt-supposed-be-there/

 

[Ajackson17]

Do anyone meditate and step out of their bodies? I do time has no influence.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Don't really care about this discussion all that much, but I will drop this here for thought.


All I want to point out in this video is that most of the people that were so confident to proclaim themselves as athiests seem completely clueless when asked questions that should be easily answered given how strongly they stand on their beliefs. I'm not saying the interviewer is right or wrong here, but he was pretty easily able to get most of those people to admit that they don't believe there is any proof in something like evolution, but they have faith that the scientists are right.

Now I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatical believer. What I mean is I can easily see how someone on the outside might think it's silly for me to believe in a being that I've never seen and have no concrete proof exists. At the end of the day, all I can go with is my own personal faith and that feeling that just exists in me that there is a higher being out there. But tell me, how is it any less silly for people to have blind faith in scientists who are essentially just human beings who can be wrong, have been wrong before, and will undoubtedly be wrong again. If you want to believe science has all the answers or will one day have all the answers, that's fine. But it's a bit laughable how these athiests go around belittling and talking down about religious people, but in turn can't intelligently defend their beliefs any better than those same people the criticize. Blind faith is part of many religious tenants. It's the exact opposite of how you should proceed if you're an athiest. So who is really sillier here?

 

[Alkinduz]

Don't really care about this discussion all that much, but I will drop this here for thought.


All I want to point out in this video is that most of the people that were so confident to proclaim themselves as athiests seem completely clueless when asked questions that should be easily answered given how strongly they stand on their beliefs. I'm not saying the interviewer is right or wrong here, but he was pretty easily able to get most of those people to admit that they don't believe there is any proof in something like evolution, but they have faith that the scientists are right.

Now I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatical believer. What I mean is I can easily see how someone on the outside might think it's silly for me to believe in a being that I've never seen and have no concrete proof exists. At the end of the day, all I can go with is my own personal faith and that feeling that just exists in me that there is a higher being out there. But tell me, how is it any less silly for people to have blind faith in scientists who are essentially just human beings who can be wrong, have been before, and will undoubtedly be wrong again. If you want to believe has all the answers or will one day have all the answers, that's fine. But it's a bit laughable how these athiests go around belittling and talking down about religious people, but in turn can't intelligently defend their beliefs any better than those same people the criticize. Blind faith is part of many religious tenants. It's the exact opposite of how you should proceed if you're an athiest. So who is really sillier here?

youre silly for limiting yourself to the Whole atheist vs theist debate and sides.

in the grandscheme of things(reality now/universe). Relativization is needed here.

check this out(mute it music is shit lol):


you wanna sit there and tell me what you just saw makes any sense?

 

[zombie]

Thing is, birds did come from dinosaurs but pigs have never had one species down its evolutionary line that had wings, or even hinted at it.

That's why I'm saying it's silly, it's unheard of and is illogical.

but before came no other animal had feathers... so who is 2 say it cant happen 200 million years from now according 2 evolution...

under the laws of evolution it is possible for another creature to appear with feathers

but how if the creature didnt have feathers before?

Every generation has slight mutations and those that provided a survival benefit to an individual animal survive

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Don't really care about this discussion all that much, but I will drop this here for thought.


All I want to point out in this video is that most of the people that were so confident to proclaim themselves as athiests seem completely clueless when asked questions that should be easily answered given how strongly they stand on their beliefs. I'm not saying the interviewer is right or wrong here, but he was pretty easily able to get most of those people to admit that they don't believe there is any proof in something like evolution, but they have faith that the scientists are right.

Now I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatical believer. What I mean is I can easily see how someone on the outside might think it's silly for me to believe in a being that I've never seen and have no concrete proof exists. At the end of the day, all I can go with is my own personal faith and that feeling that just exists in me that there is a higher being out there. But tell me, how is it any less silly for people to have blind faith in scientists who are essentially just human beings who can be wrong, have been before, and will undoubtedly be wrong again. If you want to believe has all the answers or will one day have all the answers, that's fine. But it's a bit laughable how these athiests go around belittling and talking down about religious people, but in turn can't intelligently defend their beliefs any better than those same people the criticize. Blind faith is part of many religious tenants. It's the exact opposite of how you should proceed if you're an athiest. So who is really sillier here?

youre silly for limiting yourself to the Whole atheist vs theist debate and sides.

in the grandscheme of things(reality now/universe). Relativization is needed here.

check this out(mute it music is shit lol):


you wanna sit there and tell me what you just saw makes any sense?

I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is. I'm also not sure how I limited myself to anything, but ok.

 

[VIBE]

I can't quote you w/o an error but I see nothing out of the ordinary.

Like it states, it's not uncommon to find land animals in water like that.

 

[Arya Tsaddiq]

I can't quote you w/o an error but I see nothing out of the ordinary.

Like it states, it's not uncommon to find land animals in water like that.

Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc."3 If museums displayed these real fossils instead of adorning dinosaur dioramas with feathers, then the evolutionary story that "dinosaurs evolved into birds" would be quickly seen as the fiction that it is.4

That sounds ordinary?

 

[VIBE]

Where is HIS proof?

Photos?

Video?

Why doesn't he turn evolution upside down and expose it?

Why is a creationist site releasing the info?

 

[Arya Tsaddiq]

Where is HIS proof?

Photos?

Video?

Why doesn't he turn evolution upside down and expose it?

Why is a creationist site releasing the info?

I think thats kind of the point of the article

 

[VIBE]

Nah, he ha made books but you, of course, gotta buy them to see his "proof".

I see no one but creationists co-signing the guy, not one reputable source.

Kinda hard to take what he has to say in any type of way seriously. But I'll look into him and his research, for sure.

 

[Ajackson17]

There is no scientific explanation why I'm such a coon

 

[Breezy_Kilroy]

Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.

Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.

Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.

Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?

This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.

We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.

Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.

Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.

Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?

This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.

We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.

Males eat at the top, females eat at the bottom. Evolution doesn't promise that a species is guaranteed to live if they don't adapt properly or fast enough.

 

[VIBE]

Let's go back to the giraffes for a second because this is rather interesting.

Female giraffes, tend to have shorter necks than their male counterparts.

Evolution tells us that the giraffe evolved to reach higher trees for food.

Now if this was in fact the case how are giraffes not extinct?

This would mean only the male giraffes would be able to survive while the females would've died out due to their disadvantage.

We all know that you need a male and female to reproduce.

While the giraffe as we know it is native to Africa, more than 50 million years ago they also roamed along Europe and Asia. It is believed that giraffes were introduced to Asia about 15 million years ago. There aren’t very many fossils of the early giraffes but enough information for scientists to come up with some theories that they believe are parallel to what occurred for them in regards to evolution. The oldest fossil that has been identified is about 1.5 million years old.

These early giraffes likely looked like deer and were much shorter than what we know of them today. What is widely debated is how they ended up with the extremely long necks of today’s giraffes. There are a couple of ideas that circulate about that which you may be interested in. Many believe it occurred slowly, over plenty of time due to the trees in the areas where they lived getting taller. This process took place to allow them a way to continue feeding from them.

This is known as the Lamarck Theory and it was introduced in 1808. It is possible that the food on the ground was scarce and that these animals were instinctively raising their necks as high up as they could in order to reach what was there. Maybe they observed other animals including elephants doing so. Over time, the size of those necks was longer and longer to allow them this adaptation and survival method.

Charles Darwin has another theory about survival of the fittest. He believes that some of the giraffes had a genetic mutation that allowed them to develop longer necks. These individuals where able to eat more and so they were stronger. That means those males were the ones breeding and that genetic pattern was passed down to others. Those that couldn’t get enough to eat weren’t strong enough to be able to mate with the females and they eventually died without passing along their own genetic materials.

Another theory is that the necks of males grew longer in order to help them be more different from the females. However, that created problems when it was time for mating to occur so eventually the necks of the females were also getting longer due to genetic factors. However, most researchers have found this idea to be one that they can’t prove and that they aren’t really willing to accept on theory alone.

In 1996 a new theory came along that offers us a new angle to look at. Instead of the necks growing dramatically for them to feed, perhaps it was their legs that were able to give them the additional height required. It could have been a combination of both of them as they evolved too which helped them to be able to carry their body weight around as they do.

The most amazing thing about the evolution of giraffes is that their internal anatomy was able to be modified as well to take care of these changes. In order to help with that long neck they had to develop strong shoulders and muscles. They had to develop a complex and fascinating heart and cardiovascular system so that the blood wouldn’t rush to their brains as they bent to drink.

Perhaps one day we will have many more answers about giraffe evolution. That way we can know with certainty what their past was and how they have come to be the amazing creatures that we known and admire today. New technology and new fossils are discovered all the time out there so we will just have to wait and see. In the meantime though it can be fun to explore the different theories and to discuss what your own thoughts about it all are.

 

[VIBE]

http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm

Good read, long, a lot of info and insight.

 

[gem$tone]

I've seen a lot of smart people on this board lose debates. Doesn't take away from their intelligence or the fruits of their research. I consider myself uninformed concerning a host of issues so I rarely participate, but I truly enjoy reading the back and forths even the jokes that lighten things up. Even some that I don't agree with, I appreciate their input. Yet you have some fanatical individuals that act like irrational, unruly children that would dispute trigonometry or quantum physics because they either can't or refuse to follow the steps necessary to receive accurate answers.

 

[gem$tone]

I've seen a lot of smart people on this board lose debates. Doesn't take away from their intelligence or the fruits of their research. I consider myself uninformed concerning a host of issues so I rarely participate, but I truly enjoy reading the back and forths even the jokes that lighten things up. Even some that I don't agree with, I appreciate their input. Yet you have some fanatical individuals that act like irrational, unruly children that would dispute trigonometry or quantum physics because they either can't or refuse to follow the steps necessary to receive accurate answers.