There is NO evidence for time loops, previous universes or other parallel universe. None. This is simply your opinion. Neither do you have any explanation of how ‘nature’ caused the universe we know exists. Every single compoenent of your view is unable to be supported by anything empirical.
There is not a shred of evidence for any alternative to the origin of the universe. The multiverse, previous universes, an eternal concept of time etc etc are all postulations of a finite mind. There is not a grain of empirical data to support any of them.
Which leaves us with simply this. The universe exists. It consists of order, design and life. We can either accept that this comes from an intelligent mind that exists outside of our understanding of time and space, or we can assume that everything that exists MUST at some point have a naturalistic explanation.
1> The fossil evidence is conclusive on micro evolution, inconclsuive on macro evolution. What are you going to start discussing horses and whales now too?
2> Java man is an interesting case in point, because it illustrates how deceit has been used to imprint evolution as plausible. Dubois found a skull cap and three teeth in 1891, and a thigh bone in 1892, on the island of Java. The bones were about 50 feet apart. On no other grounds than an obsession ith finding a ‘missing link’, Dubois claimed these fragments came from the same creature. From just these compenents, drawings appeared of an ape-man like creature, and declarations in various newspapers and journals of the discovery of the missing link. What Dubois didn;t reveal for over 30 years was that he had also found two human skulls in the same general location and level in a gravel deposit. There is in fact no proof that the skullcap didn’t belong to a large extinct ape, and the leg bone to an ordinary human.
3> Heckels idea was not only mistaken, he forged the pictures.
In 2000, it was still shown in over 50 text books in the US.
And while we’re on Mr Haeckel…he also claimed that “gill slits” (now called “throat pouches”), a backbone, and a tail in vertebrate embryos are proof that humans and animals descended from a common ancestor. In fact this is still presented in textbooks, despite the fact that the initial stages of development follow very different patterns of cell division and become very different structures in the mature organisms. The differences are ignored, and the similarities, though fleeting and only superficial, are emphasized to support the idea of a common evolutionary history.
You seem to have a serious lack of education and understanding. Not believing in evolution is delusional. The amount of evidence for it is so staggering that it beggars the imagination that you could be an even moderately educated adult and not know this to be true.
Do you think that being painfully unaware of common knowledge helps or hinders the perception of your arguments?
1> Atheism ceratinly encompasses more thhan just ‘one idea’. I suggest you read the definition of Atheism given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), at http://www.atheists.org/atheism. Atheism has developed a set of tenets, arguments and postions on a number of issues.
2> You have no evidence that quantum events are uncaused. You continue to repeat this as a mantra, but if you are true to science you will present evidence. An uncaused event must literally appear out of nothing. Quantum events do not appear out of nothing. You only hold to this position because it is convenient.
Well you are taing great pains to denigrate me, and haven’t contributed a shred of evidence. So here’s a challenge for you. Present the evidence for the transition of one definite species to another completely different species. And I’m not talking about Darwins finches.
How about all of biology? The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you think you’re smarter than every single biologist on Earth. None of them are anywhere near as bright as you are.
Why would you think that?
DNA shows common descent. Fossils show common descent. Taxonomic traits show common descent. Every fucking thing we do in the science of biology show it. Significantly less than 1% of PhDs in the biological sciences question evolution. And the pitiful few that question it are all creationist morons.
Read this page:
It’s not honorable to be willfully ignorant of reality. You aren’t fighting the good fight here, you are wasting the brain you think God gave you.
The evidence you claim for common descent can easily be explained by common DESIGN. Lift the level of your rhetoric to something resembling intelligence and provide the evidence I have requested.
You don’t understand evidence. The material you have presented is suggestive of common descent. It is also suggestive of common design. Either way it proves nothing.
What I have asked for is empirical data showing the links between two distinctly different species.
That’s what evidence of common descent is. What are you picturing your evidence would look like? Are you actually so uneducated that you think a fish will swim up to the shore and feet will pop out?
Also, evidence of common descent in no way is evidence of design. If creatures had been designed there wouldn’t be transitional forms. It’s amazing you really just refuse to actually engage the lobes here. All I’m asking is for you to actually think about this.
Transitional forms = no design. Think about it, it’s simple.
It would also do you good to actually read the Wiki reference.
The passage on vestigial structures is an interetsing one, given that the conclusion quoted is as follows:
“The most reasonable conclusion to draw is that these creatures descended from creatures in which these parts were functional, which in turn indicates that most (or indeed all) creatures descended from common ancenstors.”
This is hardly certain, and is not even unequivocal on the idea of a common ancestor (as opposed to ancestors).
1> Why would there not be transitional forms? Even in your own wiki refernce it states “It must be noted, however, that vestigial structures may have had their original function replaced with another. For example the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals.”
2> “Are you actually so uneducated that you think a fish will swim up to the shore and feet will pop out?” No, but you must believe that this happens in trasntions over millions of years, so you will have evidence right?
You’re making a fool of yourself here. It would be really hard for fossils to show microevolution. The millions of fossils we have pretty much all show macroevolution - an accumulation of microevolution. Why did you mention horses and whales? Those are good examples - we have a near-complete set of fossils showing a smooth transition from land-dwelling quadrupeds to whales.
He found Homo erectus fossils - even if you thought that he misidentified those (and I don’t), we still have lots of other erectus specimens. Are you going to deny them all?
For one thing, Haeckels’ drawings were emphasized to make the point that he was wanting them to show. “Forged” is probably too strong a word. But hey, I’ll give that one to you - so what if he did? His basic idea was wrong, and it stood in opposition to Darwinian evolution. If Haeckels had been right, then Darwinian evolution would have been proven wrong.
Good! Textbooks should show historical ideas that were disproven.
If god made animals as they were there wouldn’t be transitional forms. Because they wouldn’t be changing. If we have transitional forms then animals weren’t designed in their current form. Jesus merciful fuck, this is stunning. Stop and read the masthead of the site a few times.
I don’t know what you think you’re getting at because of the sentence of vestigial forms. But they support evolution. They certainly don’t support design, because God would be an idiot to put tiny worthless feet on a legless lizard.
But than again, I guess God is an idiot. Because it seems like he wants his followers to ignore what’s in front of their eyes.
Yes. We have evidence. We have transitional forms. And DNA. And taxonomic bits. Read the page again.
1> Macro evolution is NOT an accumulation of micro evolution. You simply don’t get it.
2> Your claim about fossil evidence for quadrupeds to whales just shows how indoctrinated by this stuff. Each step in this alleged link is based on supposition, not evidence. A very early step in this alleged chain was supposed by nothing more than dental similarities between the mesonychid Dissacus navajovius (which is Dissacus carnifex of Cope) and some archaeocete specimens. However there is now much disagreeemnt about ven this scant evidence. Each and every alleged link is the same. I suggest you look beynd the pretty pictures and do some study.
3> Haeckles drawings were shown until 2000 as being CORRECT!