# Evolution of Whales, proof of evolution



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

Here's a short (11 min) but powerful video showing FOUR different lines of scientific evidence
that whales are most definitely evolved from land mammals. It's so intelligent and makes so
much sense. You'll learn some new things from this video.


----------



## Uralian Hamster (May 13, 2011)

* *













http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetidae


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

I can disprove Evolution, there are no animals in Space. In Water and in the Air but not in Space.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> I can disprove Evolution, there are no animals in Space. In Water and in the Air but not in Space.


.....do you actually think that's proof against evolution? That's almost as dumb as the guy that said animals don't pop out of peanut butter jars so therefore no evolution. Between this and the whole flat earth thing, I'm really starting to drift away from being able to give you the benefit of the doubt of just being a troll, if you are a troll you're a pretty bad one because this stuff is so blatantly stupid it's passed being funny.


----------



## coredev (Oct 28, 2014)

YamahaMotors said:


> It's so intelligent and makes so much sense.


If people can relate something to you - it makes sense. You've been marketed


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Roland787 said:


> .....do you actually think that's proof against evolution? That's almost as dumb as the guy that said animals don't pop out of peanut butter jars so therefore no evolution. Between this and the whole flat earth thing, I'm really starting to drift away from being able to give you the benefit of the doubt of just being a troll, if you are a troll you're a pretty bad one because this stuff is so blatantly stupid it's passed being funny.


The only thing you did on the Flat Earth was the same as here you just disagreed. I on the other hand disproved the 2 things and you didn´t even bother to look into it. The only thing you are doing is trying to discredit me as a troll. 

I am really start drifting away from being able to listen to your Bullshit any longer.

Evolution is adaption to the Environment, humans need to bring the Environment up into Space to survive there. According to Evolution Creatures developed from Water to Air which is exactly as non-liveable as from Air to Space.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> I can disprove Evolution, there are no animals in Space. In Water and in the Air but not in Space.


Animal in space:










...also:

"Traces of plankton and other microorganisms have been found living on the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS), according to Russian space officials. They claim the plankton were not carried there at launch - but are thought to have been blown there by air currents on Earth. Incredibly, the tiny organisms were found to be able to survive in the vacuum of space despite the freezing temperatures, lack of oxygen and cosmic radiation. The discovery was made during a routine spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts Olek Artemyev and Alexander Skvortsov, who were launching nanosatellites into space.
They used wipes to polish the surface of windows - also known as illuminators - on the Russian segment of the ISS and later found the presence of plankton and other microorganisms using 'high-precision equipment'.

Source: Russian Scientists Claim That Algae Lives On ISS Exterior (Update) - NASA Watch

<.< plus...you know:


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@_FreeBeer_

The ISS is still in Orbit and Bacteria are not animals.

And for the Radiation Argument I come you with Cockroaches.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> @_FreeBeer_
> 
> The ISS is still in Orbit and Bacteria are not animals.
> 
> And for the Radiation Argument I come you with Cockroaches.


Sooo...the human in the space suit is what? >.> right I'm imagining shit.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> Sooo...the human in the space suit is what? >.> right I'm imagining shit.


read


Zero11 said:


> Evolution is adaption to the Environment, humans need to bring the Environment up into Space to survive there. According to Evolution Creatures developed from Water to Air which is exactly as non-liveable as from Air to Space.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> read


You do realize that space is void of something essential for life: fuel.
As far as I'm aware I as a complex organism require complex fuels to survive or I malfunction. Every living organism requires fuel.
No fuel, no life.

We may end up building synthetic lifeforms that can harness solar energy & harvest other materials & forces in space to use as fuel aka produce energy to run on.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

I think that evolution only exists in animals, not humans.

As soon as we became conscious we no longer needed it since we can use are minds to creatively adapt to things and are less reliant on our limited bodies.


If we want to go under water, we build a submarine, not wait years for our species to develop gills.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Zero11 said:


> The only thing you did on the Flat Earth was the same as here you just disagreed.





Zero11 said:


> read


???


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> You do realize that space is void of something essential for life: fuel.
> As far as I'm aware I as a complex organism require complex fuels to survive or I malfunction. Every living organism requires fuel.
> No fuel, no life.
> 
> We may end up building synthetic lifeforms that can harness solar energy & harvest other materials & forces in space to use as fuel aka produce energy to run on.


What has this to do with anything? I never said they needed to be natively in Space. Besides how do you know there isn´t fuel in some Area of Space?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> The only thing you did on the Flat Earth was the same as here you just disagreed. I on the other hand disproved the 2 things and you didn´t even bother to look into it. The only thing you are doing is trying to discredit me as a troll.
> 
> I am really start drifting away from being able to listen to your Bullshit any longer.
> 
> Evolution is adaption to the Environment, humans need to bring the Environment up into Space to survive there. According to Evolution Creatures developed from Water to Air which is exactly as non-liveable as from Air to Space.


You didn't disprove a damn thing. You're just saying shit's that been made up and easily discredited (just saying stuff doesn't count as evidence, nor does it make us closed-minded for not accepting a claim that's not supported or that's actually countered through evidence and reason) and now showing your complete lack of understanding of evolution....

I won't try to discredit you as a "troll" any longer, I have my answer to Fry's meme now.

:dry:


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Bahburah said:


> I think that evolution only exists in animals, not humans.
> 
> As soon as we became conscious we no longer needed it since we can use are minds to creatively adapt to things and are less reliant on our limited bodies.
> 
> ...


Humans do evolve, for example people closer to the poles have evolved white-pink skin, fair hair & blue eyes in comparison to people from very hot climates where dark skin is useful as protection from the sun. The majority of people are also lactose intolerant after childhood, but some Europeans are not. Guess why (we drink milk regularly & all the dairy culture). We do adapt to our environment even now. There is also epigenetics.

Humans also sweat through their skin & we are natural born endurance runners because of this. Horses are similar in this. Sweating may seem like nothing, but it allows a human in Africa to stay cool & keep going while prey animals or predators simply overheat & die. No significant body hair, ability to sweat through the skin means we originate from a warm climate where endurance & heat resistance played a key part in survival. That, our big brains, opposable thumbs & tendency towards creating tools to swiftly adapt to newer & newer environments (such as the space suit)...make man one of the most successful species known to ourselves.



Zero11 said:


> What has this to do with anything? I never said they needed to be natively in Space. Besides how do you know there isn´t fuel in some Area of Space?


There might be, but if there is, then the animal is no longer surviving in the vacuum of space without fuel. So far we know of nothing that does this, maybe we will find something like it somewhere on an asteroid or a gas cloud.

No fuel to burn=no life=no animal.

If evolution does not exist, then we have to explain the biodiversity some other way. Creationism is equally questionable & full of holes.* The most I'll ever agree to is that we don't know..yet, but evidence suggests evolution thus far.*

If there is an alternative to the 2 I'm all ears.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Roland787 said:


> You didn't disprove a damn thing. You're just saying shit's that been made up and easily discredited


You're just saying shit - thats what you are doing :wink:

Your claim that I didn´t disproved a thing is just not true but how would you know? You never saw it in the first place!



Roland787 said:


> It *appears* flat, but yet you can't see beyond the horizon. If it was flat, we would at least see some kind of mass beyond it, even if we couldn't make it out, but instead everything goes under the horizon and the *sky* is seen at eye level....seriously dude, this is just conspiracy nut territory.


your logic here is incredibly weak, or do you have unlimited vision?



FreeBeer said:


> Humans do evolve, for example people closer to the poles have evolved white-pink skin, fair hair & blue eyes in comparison to people from very hot climates where dark skin is useful as protection from the sun. The majority of people are also lactose intolerant after childhood, but most Europeans are not. Guess why. We do adapt to our environment even now. There is also epigenetics.


How do you know they are evolved and weren´t so in the first place? Oh epigentics guess what the DNA is only 700mb far too few to be a crucial Element.



FreeBeer said:


> No fuel to burn=no life=no animal.


You can´t burn something in Space. There are no atmospheric conditions. And you can´t move as every force is nullified.


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Zero11 said:


> @_FreeBeer_
> 
> The ISS is still in Orbit and Bacteria are not animals.
> 
> And for the Radiation Argument I come you with Cockroaches.


<sigh> There is your animal of the day that can survive space vacum, Tardigrades:

'Water bears' are first animal to survive space vacuum - space - 08 September 2008 - New Scientist



> Tiny invertebrates called 'water bears' can survive in the vacuum of space, a European Space Agency experiment has shown. They are the first animals known to be able to survive the harsh combination of low pressure and intense radiation found in space.
> Water bears, also known as tardigrades, are known for their virtual indestructibility on Earth. The creatures can survive intense pressures, huge doses of radiation, and years of being dried out.
> To further test their hardiness, Ingemar Jönsson of Sweden's Kristianstad University and colleagues launched two species of dried-up tardigrades from Kazakhstan in September 2007 aboard ESA's FOTON-M3 mission, which carried a variety of experimental payloads.
> After 10 days of exposure to space, the satellite returned to Earth. The tardigrades were retrieved and rehydrated to test how they reacted to the airless conditions in space, as well as ultraviolet radiation from the Sun and charged particles from space called cosmic rays.
> The vacuum itself seemed to have little effect on the creatures. But ultraviolet radiation, which can damage cellular material and DNA, did take its toll.


They still get damaged from UV but this is the closes to animal in space. Tardigrades even started to lay eggs after the trip. If there is one creature that can survive for that long then it's a matter of time when we will find another one, which is even more durable against space. 

Oh and btw, even roaches can't survive long in radiation, they would die eventually - last but not least.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> You can´t burn something in Space. There are no atmospheric conditions. And you can´t move as every force is nullified.


:3 seems like you answered your own question then.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Zero11 said:


> I can disprove Evolution, there are no animals in Space. In Water and in the Air but not in Space.


yes there are
they found amoeba living on the exterior of the space station


----------



## God Logic (Oct 29, 2014)

Roland787 said:


> "have you seen a cat become a dog through successive generations."
> 
> And I'm supposed to believe you're a biologist with a credible understanding of evolution?


They dont teach "evolution" in biology.


There are evolutionary biologists who watch bacteria turn into bacteria.


If you call that science..


----------



## God Logic (Oct 29, 2014)

Evolution is the veritable "god of the gaps" for something science cant rationally explain or observe with any measure of tangible evidence.


If you say something enough, people will believe it, they dont know why its true, they just know they are supposed to believe it.


----------



## God Logic (Oct 29, 2014)

How can I put this....

Evolutionary biologists are the Quantum theorists of the biological field.

If I may be so bold, I would call it fringe science..


----------



## God Logic (Oct 29, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I believe in evolution


Why?


----------



## Discovery (Jul 3, 2014)

If you can understand how and why genetic mutations occur, then why is it so hard to understand that these mutations lead to genetic variation within a given population, and that this _variation_ provides the framework for selective advantage (and/or disadvantage) between individuals within their environment? The individuals that breed and reproduce, pass on their genes and the one's that don't, don't!

That's the basis for evolution.. it's a very simple concept. It's not fringe science.. it's absolutely mainstream science.


----------



## God Logic (Oct 29, 2014)

Discovery said:


> If you can understand how and why genetic mutations occur, then why is it so hard to understand that these mutations lead to genetic variation within a given population, and that this _variation_ provides the framework for selective advantage (and/or disadvantage) between individuals within their environment? The individuals that breed and reproduce, pass on their genes and the one's that don't, don't!
> 
> That's the basis for evolution.. it's a very simple concept. It's not fringe science.. it's absolutely mainstream science.


The issue with mutations is that they rarely, if ever, afford a genome any advantage, which puts it at odds with "natural selection".

Then there are mutations which do survive, only to create perfectly normal progeny that do not exhibit the mutation..

Which is essentially the opposite of what you are describing as "evolution".

Copying errors in DNA letter code sequencing could in no way account for the diversity of every living genome.


If a mutation is somehow beneficial, its entirely circumstantial, but in no way addresses the diverse genetic information we see today.

And weve never seen a mutation manifest outside of the parents genus.


The question of diversity has never truly been answered, only cleverly hidden in speculation.


How did the first organisms progeny deviate in one generation from its parental genus??

It makes no sense.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Discovery said:


> If you can understand how and why genetic mutations occur, then why is it so hard to understand that these mutations lead to genetic variation within a given population, and that this _variation_ provides the framework for selective advantage (and/or disadvantage) between individuals within their environment? The individuals that breed and reproduce, pass on their genes and the one's that don't, don't!


1) Direct consequences of Mutation are harmful: They occur unplanned and therefore damage the Organism in most cases. Common sense teaches that unconscious interventions into a perfect and complex structure not improve the very same but only enable restriction. Actually there couldn´t yet be observed a "advantageous mutation".

2) Mutation doesn´t adds to the DNS of an organism any new information. The carrier of genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or moved to other locations. Mutations can not bring a living being to form a new organ or a new trait . You can only cause abnormalities, such as a growing on the back a leg, or a ear growing on the belly. 

3) In order to be transmitted from one generation to the next, a mutation in the germ cells of the organism must have taken place. A random change that occurs in any cell or any organ of the body can not be transferred to the next generation. A human eye, for example, that has been affected by radiation exposure or other causes, can not be passed on to subsequent generations. 

In short, it is not possible that living organisms have developed evolutionarily, because there is no mechanism in nature that could cause an evolutionary development.

THE RUMOR ABOUT THE TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND 

Evolutionists claim that the sea invertebrates that are found in the Cambrian strata, have somehow evolved over the course of tens of millions of years in fish. However, in the same way as the Cambrian aquatic invertebrates have no ancestors, there are no transitional links which would indicate an evolution of aquatic invertebrates in fish. It should be noted that there are enormous structural differences between these two animal species. In aquatic invertebrates are the hard tissue on the outside of the body, where they are located in fish, which are vertebrates within the body. Such an enormous "evolution" had trillions of steps needed for their completion, and therefore would need billions of transitional forms to exist to identify these stages. 

Evolutionists have been for about 140 years excavated fossil layers in search of these hypothetical forms, but no one has ever found one that would even remotely located therebetween.

Why Transition from water to land is impossible

Evolutionists claimed that one day an aquatic species somehow went ashore and turned into a land-based specie.

There are a number of obvious facts that make such a relocation impossible:

1. Carrying the own weight: Aquatic creatures have no problem (and also not the physiological conditions) to carry their own weight, while the terrestrial creatures only consume 40% of their energy in order to support their own body weight. Animals have made ​​a transition from water to land, so they should have simultaneously developed a new musculoskeletal system (!) To live up to the newly created energy demand, which could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Conservation of body heat: Out of the water, the temperature can change quickly and vary within wide ranges. The body of mainland residents is equipped with a mechanism by which they can tolerate such large temperature fluctuations. In the sea, however, the temperature changes only slowly, and even within such a large fluctuation areas. A living being whose organism is matched to the constant temperature of the sea water Temperature, should have appropriated a protection system to not suffer harm from the temperature changes on land. It is ridiculous to claim that a fish appropriated such a protection mechanism by random mutations, as soon as he went ashore.

3. The water balance: On land, it is of fundamental importance for the metabolism that water and even moisture due to the limited availability are consumed sparingly. The skin, for example, must be designed so that, although a certain amount of water can escape, but at the same time prevents excessive evaporation. Land-based animals, therefore, have a thirst, which water animals don´t know about. In addition, their skin is not suitable for a dry habitat.

4. Kidneys: Aquatic organisms can deposit waste materials, especially ammonia, very easily in their bodies by providing them filtered off, because there is enough water in the neighborhood. On land, however, the water has to be economically used, and for this purpose the creatures of this habitat are equipped with kidneys. Use the kidneys, ammonia is converted to urea stored and then excreted with minimal wastage of water. In short, to enable a relocation from water to land living beings without kidneys would not only suddenly must develop that organ, but also to ensure new physiological systems to ensure its function.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen from the water, while they let the water flow through their gills. They can not survive more than a few minutes out of the water. In order to live on land they had suddenly need to acquire a perfect lung system.

It is an absolutely safe impossibility that all these dramatic physiological changes in the same organism and at the same time could have occurred by chance.


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

God Logic said:


> Humans share 50% of their genetic material with bananas.
> Id like to see how that happened over 3 billion years.


I guess this guy was actually telling the truth then:


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

God Logic said:


> Or, have you seen a cat become a dog through successive generations.


I know of animal species becoming like other animal species due to playing a similar role in their environment. 
This is called convergent evolution. For example, Thylacines looked very similar to dogs, but they were marsupials. 

I believe that if we could go to other planets that are rich with life like Earth and have Earthlike living conditions, we would find many animal species that look very similar to species on Earth.


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

God Logic said:


> What in your research has lead you personally to believe that all the genera currently in existence came from one original organism?


I think it took something like 3.5 billion years for the original organism to evolve by a series of molecular accidents, so it's extremely unlikely that today's species evolved from anything else but that one organism.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Creation is not necessarily opposed to Evolution.


Which creation story? There are as many as there are religions or does Christianity think theirs is the correct one? If so prove it without invoking faith or belief. Give me the smoking gun, point at God or the Gods & show them to me, so I can touch, examine & make sure its real.

The possibility of evolution being wrong doesn't automatically make creationism true. It just means we don't understand it fully just yet, which means more research is needed till we do. Mystery & uncertainty is fun & exiting imo.



Amine said:


> Denying evolution in the 21st century


Well it depends how you interpret the evidence. Some might argue its not conclusive. Either way questioning, searching, objectivity & lack of faith or belief, absolute reliance of empirical evidence is a must. We can imagine sure, but science deals in facts, evidence.

We assume evolution exists, but do we know for certain? How far are we willing to trust the opinions of other ppl without checking the facts for ourselves?

Take the Coelacanth. The fossils made ppl think it had primitive feet like flippers which made it a intermediate species between land & sea <.<...but then we found the fish to be alive & it was nothing like we predicted. Its just a fish...a goddamn slow to evolve (as in not evolving) living fossil of a fish...that uses the leg like fins to swim backwards or upside down LOL.










Imagination may run wild & people make mistakes, we reevaluate & correct theories over time. Imo this is why science is awesome. If we are wrong we admit it & change the view based on solid evidence.

^^; this one is funny:

The Other Intelligent Design Theories

...seriously imo creationism is amusing.


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

Zero11 said:


> I can disprove Evolution, there are no animals in Space. In Water and in the Air but not in Space.


i can disprove evolution too. God created human's, but I have no evidence except an archaic book purportedly written in the words of God. Not enough evidence? Sucks, that's pretty much all I got.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

coy said:


> i can disprove evolution too. God created human's, but I have no evidence except an archaic book purportedly written in the words of God. Not enough evidence? Sucks, that's pretty much all I got.


Don't pretend to be something or someone you're not.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

coy said:


> but I have no evidence except an archaic book


The bible isn´t a book it is a collection of many books.


----------



## 45130 (Aug 26, 2012)

This is an unworthy discussion. I suggest the evolutionists spend their time on something more productive, and the creationists don't bother themselves with science. I would've expected a more mature reaction from the PerC community to this topic, but apparently this is how it is. What brings us together is a pseudoscience, after all.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Rage Kage said:


> This is an unworthy discussion. I suggest the evolutionists spend their time on something more productive, and the creationists don't bother themselves with science. I would've expected a more mature reaction from the PerC community to this topic, but apparently this is how it is. What brings us together is a pseudoscience, after all.


----------



## Uralian Hamster (May 13, 2011)

This is relevant.


----------



## Vic (Dec 4, 2010)

Whales are some cool dudes.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Vic said:


> Whales are some cool dudes.


False, they're lukewarm submarines.


----------



## Discovery (Jul 3, 2014)

Zero11 said:


> 1) Direct consequences of Mutation are harmful: They occur unplanned and therefore damage the Organism in most cases(...)Actually there couldn´t yet be observed a "advantageous mutation".


Couldn't be further from the truth..There are innumerable examples of advantageous mutations you could find, if you just spent a moment to look it up.. Sure, many mutations can be harmful as well, so it goes both ways. Mutations happen all the time..The most common source of genetic mutation stems from mis-translations of genetic code when cells undergo mitosis. This is a key factor for the mechanism behind ageing, in fact.. over the years our cells are exposed to oxidative damage, and thus it's our DNA itself that begins to degrade..




Zero11 said:


> 3) In order to be transmitted from one generation to the next, a mutation in the germ cells of the organism must have taken place. A random change that occurs in any cell or any organ of the body can not be transferred to the next generation. A human eye, for example, that has been affected by radiation exposure or other causes, can not be passed on to subsequent generations.


You are correct with this. It is only possible to pass on mutations when they occur in the DNA of sexually reproductive cells (aka gametes). But this is perfectly possible via radiation or more commonly, by natural degradation (hence why there is a considerably higher chance for genetic disorders in children borne of older human mothers).

Mutation is essentially THE key process by which new genetic material is introduced into a population. Another major way new genetic material gets introduced is from viruses..

There's literally oodles upon oodles of information about these processes available..


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

Zero11 said:


> The bible isn´t a book it is a collection of many books.


Would you care to add anything else axiomatic? By the way, my post was satirical....


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

I recently learned a lot about the bible. It is 100% fiction, a book of pure lies and mythology. 

* The Old testament is a lie. Exodus is fiction. Moses never existed. There is no historical evidence for Moses or any of the events of Exodus. Nothing in the historical records of ancient Egypt show anything about Moses or 2 million Israelites. There's no archaeological evidence of 2 million Israelites spending 40 years in making their journey to Israel from Egypt. If they were real they would have left behind artifacts. They left behind nothing. And why would they need 40 years to go to Israel when it's right next to egypt. Makes no sense. Nothing you saw in the Ten Commandments movie by Cecil B. DeMille ever happened. 

* Jesus was originally a mythical sun god who was created by the Gnostics. Jesus was based on astrology and existing pagan gods. He was originally not claimed to have been a living person. 

* Christians then decided to create stories (deliberate, conscious lies) that Jesus had actually been a man who had lived on Earth, not just some ephemeral god in the sky. They did this to "increase the faith," i.e. make people believe more. So everything we've been told about Jesus is a pure lie. He never existed. He was never on earth. 

* There were originally 40 gospels, each of which contained different stories & beliefs (all lies) about Jesus and his life. Only 4 of these are in the official Bible. The christians suppressed the other 36 gospels in order to get rid of many conflicting stories, beliefs, and viewpoints. (because when lots of different people make up lies, their stories don't match). Also the clerics didn't like the Gnostic beliefs about Jesus because they didn't require priests and bishops to exist. The Gnostics had a version of Christianity which was like advanced metaphysics, while the 4 canonical gospels of the bible are very repetitive and dumbed down for the masses. For example, Jesus goes on and on about eating his body and drinking his blood, saying if you do that, you will live forever. 

* At the council of Nicea, roman emperor Constantine gathered the christian sects and decided to settle the question of exactly what Christians should believe and which gospels to include in the bible (i.e. get all their lies straight). He decided to include the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Constantine wanted to use Christianity to unify the Roman empire, which was crumbling. A gospel is the account of an apostle about Jesus' life and teachings. 

* Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never existed. The gospels were works of pure fiction and mythology which were created by different groups of anonymous Christians. We don't know their names. They didn't want us to know their names, because it would indicate the gospels are fiction.

* There is great uncertainty about when exactly Jesus was supposed to have died. It varies over a wide range. There are no ancient historical records of him having lived or done anything. No real ancient historians wrote anything about him, because he didn't exist. There is a delay of at least 30 years between the time Jesus was supposed to have died and when the first gospels were written about Jesus. This is extremely fishy, because if he were a real person, and if he were so important, then people would know exactly the year and day he died and they would have begun writing about him while he was alive or at least when he died. But nobody wrote anything about him during his supposed lifetime or for at least 30 years after he was supposed to have died. This is because he is a myth and never existed. 

* Jesus has nothing to do with Christmas. It is the celebration of the winter solstice. MANY ancient cultures celebrated the winter solstice. The Catholic church lied (yet again) about him being born on Dec. 25. They stole this holiday from pagans to make Christianity more popular. 

* There's tons of real, physical evidence you can see and touch today to prove that evolution is real. There is no evidence at all for Moses and Jesus having lived. They are just myths, lies, created by liars. The bible is the fictional creation of many liars over a long period of time.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

So, whales evolved alongside hippos huh


(Isn't this thread supposed to be about the fascinating aspects of evolution, not about the lack of credibility contained in the bible?)


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

There is nothing to prove,
The science and the facts are there,
Whether people want to accept those facts isn't my problem,
It's blissful ignorance,
And although I'll listen to their opinions,
There isn't much in the way of arguing against it,
And it has religious themes(Arguments against it) 99% of the time.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

God Logic said:


> Evolution is the veritable "god of the gaps" for something science cant rationally explain or observe with any measure of tangible evidence.


Did anyone else lol at this???

:laughing:


Great thread, everyone; nice hustle. 

As a suggestion, never say, "I believe in evolution." Evolution doesn't require belief, never forget that.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Just_Some_Guy said:


> Did anyone else lol at this???
> 
> :laughing:
> 
> ...


No, it's too sad to laugh at, our education system is embarrassing:sad:


----------



## Agelastos (Jun 1, 2014)

Meh. Old news. Disappointing.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Roland787 said:


> No, it's too sad to laugh at, our education system is embarrassing:sad:


I've never seen anyone pull the old switch-a-roo and call science itself a "god of the gaps." Just brought it to a whole new level.


----------

