Evolution

[William]

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions01.php

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

"In conclusion, the fossil record shows us that man came into existence millions of years ago in just the same form as he is now, and that he has come down to the present with absolutely no evolutionary development. If they claim to be genuinely scientific and honest, evolutionists should throw their imaginary progression from ape to man into the bin at this point. The fact that they do not give up this spurious family tree shows that evolution is not a theory that is defended in the name of science, but rather a dogma they are struggling to keep alive in the face of the scientific facts."

[goodsamaritan]

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions01.php

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

"In conclusion, the fossil record shows us that man came into existence millions of years ago in just the same form as he is now, and that he has come down to the present with absolutely no evolutionary development. If they claim to be genuinely scientific and honest, evolutionists should throw their imaginary progression from ape to man into the bin at this point. The fact that they do not give up this spurious family tree shows that evolution is not a theory that is defended in the name of science, but rather a dogma they are struggling to keep alive in the face of the scientific facts."

How about the rest of the species on earth?

Did the rest of the species on earth also come into existence millions of years ago in the same form and shape as now????

[Paleo Donk]

Someone should make your avatar a pot cracking in half.

[KD]

Is anyone familiar with more..the mutation type theories. I think these suggest not that species have not developed or changed over time, but that looking at the fossil record suggests massive gaps in the supposed development between species. I think its something like there is no proof of any animal actually has gone through the process of natural selection (Darwinian) and that selection exists, but its far less 'creative'. i.e. indifferent to dominant or a recessive characteristics.

[goodsamaritan]

Is anyone familiar with more..the mutation type theories. I think these suggest not that species have not developed or changed over time, but that looking at the fossil record suggests massive gaps in the supposed development between species. I think its something like there is no proof of any animal actually has gone through the process of natural selection (Darwinian) and that selection exists, but its far less 'creative'. i.e. indifferent to dominant or a recessive characteristics.

I like quantavolution.  Evolution in "jumps" not uniformitarian.

But who knows?  For all I care we were created by alien gods.  This is all mind entertainment.

[pc701]

it makes more sense to me that we are some kind of alien hybrid, since we are like aliens compared to all other animals which follow nature.

[invisible]

it makes more sense to me that we are some kind of alien hybrid, since we are like aliens compared to all other animals which follow nature.

We followed nature until very recently...this is why this website exists.

[TylerDurden]

This anti-palaeo topic has been moved to the hot topics forum, where it belongs.

[William]

Did the rest of the species on earth also come into existence millions of years ago in the same form and shape as now?

IIRC he only looks at Man, but I don't see why evolution could not have happened to other species - the proof would be a change in diet; I have no data for that.

[jessica]

i wish i was apt at quoting books eloquently enough as to not foul up the info
but this book mother earth spirituality has a really different look at our evolution, generally noting that it was not in a straight line (nothing in nature really ever is) and how our physical, mental and spiritual development all intertwined...its also written by a women and comes off kind of bitter but that is no reason to disregard it:)

[William]

i wish i was apt at quoting books eloquently enough as to not foul up the info
but this book mother earth spirituality has a really different look at our evolution, generally noting that it was not in a straight line (nothing in nature really ever is) and how our physical, mental and spiritual development all intertwined...its also written by a women and comes off kind of bitter but that is no reason to disregard it:)

What I think happens is that people confuse cultural with physical evolution. Being that this is a  foody place, I look only at physical.
Spirituality IMO refers to cultural evolution, and the changes are quite real although I call it devolution.
Women have good reason to be bitter, but then, so do we all.