Ahh no I don't, but if you look up Christ consciousness you'll be able to put two and two together. To be honest I'm not even sure where I read that lol. Could've been Above Top Secret or Godlike Productions (don't bother with folks from there... extremely racist) and I wanna say Destee (majority black site but kinda dead).
The theory of evolution. Fact or fiction?
- Thread starter Complexion
- Start date
Ahh no I don't, but if you look up Christ consciousness you'll be able to put two and two together. To be honest I'm not even sure where I read that lol. Could've been Above Top Secret or Godlike Productions (don't bother with folks from there... extremely racist) and I wanna say Destee (majority black site but kinda dead).
I have presented evidence in this thread already that evolution occurs.
We have incredible amounts of evidence of evolution.
Here's the evolution of fruit flies that we observed ourselves:
Fruit fly mutation foretells 40 million years of evolution
Small, seemingly insignificant mutations in fruit flies may actually hold clues as to how a species will evolve tens of millions of years in the future.www.sciencedaily.com
Fruit Flies Evolve in Time with the Seasons: Study
Researchers find that evolution can operate on extraordinarily fast timescales.www.the-scientist.com
House Sparrow:
Observations of evolution in the wild
evolution.berkeley.edu
Five animals that evolved recently:
5 Animals That Have Evolved Recently
Animals that have evolved recently demonstrate natural selection occurring right before our eyes.now.northropgrumman.com
This is "proof" of evolution (which I maintain is a silly assortment of words. It's like asking for proof the sky is blue-- you can OBSERVE it)
Further, what are you asking for when you say
What do you mean when you say this? What exactly are you asking for?
Can you give me an example of the kind of creature you are referring to? I have an idea of what you're trying to say, and the mistake that you're making, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
We are mostly in agreement then,and Natureboy taught alot of this. Although I think you are still leaning into the so called science a little too hard. The observers effect speaks to the idea that we are the creator,and that we are god. So if you believe that,theres no reason to think the earth would need billions of years. And you have to consider "science" and history is merely YOU giving yourself a backstory.
Then you have to consider, lets say you are correct and this earthplane has been around for billions of years. How can you then truly question what ancients claim to have observed in these old text? Observers effect would say you have no idea what humans of the past observed.
People need to realize that maybe created is the wrong word. And because we are just energy,we merely get reinvented like new seasons of Love And Hiphop
We were never created and have always been. We are just recreated in different cycles,and different things are possible within those cycles. You potentially could die right now,and pop up in a completely different "universe",in a completely different time period,completely different laws of physics. Would that then make the science youve learned in this universe fact? Or now nonsense?
The main example I hear when people mention evolution is humans and monkeys sharing ancestors. What my thinking is is yes, evolution exists, and yes humans and monkeys and other primates have similar DNA, but we don't have observable evidence of the transition from what was before us to what exists now. But I may just be unaware
Last edited:
an even more crazy conceptWe are mostly in agreement then,and Natureboy taught alot of this. Although I think you are still leaning into the so called science a little too hard. The observers effect speaks to the idea that we are the creator,and that we are god. So if you believe that,theres no reason to think the earth would need billions of years. And you have to consider "science" and history is merely YOU giving yourself a backstory.
Then you have to consider, lets say you are correct and this earthplane has been around for billions of years. How can you then truly question what ancients claim to have observed in these old text? Observers effect would say you have no idea what humans of the past observed.
People need to realize that maybe created is the wrong word. And because we are just energy,we merely get reinvented like new seasons of Love And Hiphop
We were never created and have always been. We are just recreated in different cycles,and different things are possible within those cycles. You potentially could die right now,and pop up in a completely different "universe",in a completely different time period,completely different laws of physics. Would that then make the science youve learned in this universe fact? Or now nonsense?
is that you always are alive in your most probable ideal universe, and are unaware of the universes you've already perished in. But you witness other people perish
in theory, everyone ends up in their perfect place
in his spit @Ghost Utmost touched on my ten-dimensional Yodh proposition
the infinite yodh, with infinite possibilities yet still linked to the same source
We are living in a world of illusion
God doesn't desire sacrifice. But wicked men do. Psalm 40:5-6 why do you insist on asking me what i believe? is it not just a projection of your own internal quarrel? if you dont trust what i say, just say that. Scripture is scripture :ehh: did you ever speak to a Rabbi? :troll: EDIT -...
www.thecoli.com
@DoubleClutch you said "but what does this have to do with Atenism"
inside that thread hidden away.... it says this "I am the things that are, that have been, that will be, No one has ever laid open the garment by which I am concealed. the fruit I brought forth was the sun"
We are living in a world of illusion
me and @MMS building peace to the other gods as well though Light is Wavy We are living in a world of illusion Post "23" the world is deep but it's not scary when you know where you stand
www.thecoli.com
Last edited:
Studious one
Change names, like change clothes; stay a fly girl
Calm down, I just remarked about the person saying similar and gave the exact percentage that it’s supposed to be.We share 60% with a bananna, do we look halfway like a bannana?
"But Benefited,if you look closely at the similarities of a bannana and the uncircumsized human penis. Now you can stand to reason how scientist think we evolved from bannanas"
This is the logic/psuedo science the European attempts to throw at you,if you allow it.
OK, what you're asking for is evidence of a common ancestor.
Before I break this down, I want you to understand something (and this thing is where the lunatics of this thread like to insert themselves. I'm breaking it down for you because you really seem like a person who is trying to understand):
Scientists do not have every answer for every question. This is OK and it is normal. It does not mean that Christians are right, it simply means we don't know yet, OK? Fossils are incredibly difficult to form and find, and the fossil record is robust, but there are gaps. Those gaps, again, do not mean Christians are right, it just means we don't know YET.
Keeping all of that in mind, modern humans (us, me and you and your family members) emerged about 300,000 years ago in Africa. Some of our species left Africa and migrated through Asia and Europe. Some of those branched off into their own species, like the famous Neanderthal. Black hoteps like to use this information to say that White people are Neanderthals or have Neanderthal DNA (and this is true) in an attempt at dehumanizing them the same way they did to us by calling us apes and monkeys. There is truth there, but they are attempting to weaponize it the same way White people attempted to weaponize evolution against us.
The truth is, Humans are a primate species. All humans, that included Neanderthals, which went all but extinct, and homo sapiens sapiens, which is the scientific name for humans.
As for our common ancestor with monkeys, well, humans "are monkeys" which means our ancestor was a monkey. The misconception is that we come from monkeys that are extant today; this is wrong-- monkeys that exist today are more like cousins to us. But cladistics state that you do not outgrow your ancestry, and because our ancestor was a proto-monkey (a PRIMATE), we are, too, primates.
There are plenty of examples of evidence for a species that was the in-between state of non-human primate and human, the most famous of which is Lucy
Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia
When you look at the remains of Lucy, you cannot distinguish her from a human or a non-human primate. She is a blend of both-- her hips suggest upright walking like a modern human, and modern non-human apes do not have this hip structure.
Lucy also has the rib cage of a modern non-human ape, which suggested she had a larger stomach and subsisted on mainly vegetation, like modern non-human great apes.
In other words, she is a perfect blend between the two creatures, humans and apes. She is therefore considered our ancestor, because we have her traits.
I can talk about this more at length if you'd like
Ok, thanks yea, lol. I'm Christian, but I also know there was a time when the church in EuropeOK, what you're asking for is evidence of a common ancestor.
Before I break this down, I want you to understand something (and this thing is where the lunatics of this thread like to insert themselves. I'm breaking it down for you because you really seem like a person who is trying to understand):
Scientists do not have every answer for every question. This is OK and it is normal. It does not mean that Christians are right, it simply means we don't know yet, OK? Fossils are incredibly difficult to form and find, and the fossil record is robust, but there are gaps. Those gaps, again, do not mean Christians are right, it just means we don't know YET.
Keeping all of that in mind, modern humans (us, me and you and your family members) emerged about 300,000 years ago in Africa. Some of our species left Africa and migrated through Asia and Europe. Some of those branched off into their own species, like the famous Neanderthal. Black hoteps like to use this information to say that White people are Neanderthals or have Neanderthal DNA (and this is true) in an attempt at dehumanizing them the same way they did to us by calling us apes and monkeys. There is truth there, but they are attempting to weaponize it the same way White people attempted to weaponize evolution against us.
The truth is, Humans are a primate species. All humans, that included Neanderthals, which went all but extinct, and homo sapiens sapiens, which is the scientific name for humans.
As for our common ancestor with monkeys, well, humans "are monkeys" which means our ancestor was a monkey. The misconception is that we come from monkeys that are extant today; this is wrong-- monkeys that exist today are more like cousins to us. But cladistics state that you do not outgrow your ancestry, and because our ancestor was a proto-monkey (a PRIMATE), we are, too, primates.
There are plenty of examples of evidence for a species that was the in-between state of non-human primate and human, the most famous of which is Lucy
Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
When you look at the remains of Lucy, you cannot distinguish her from a human or a non-human primate. She is a blend of both-- her hips suggest upright walking like a modern human, and modern non-human apes do not have this hip structure.
Lucy also has the rib cage of a modern non-human ape, which suggested she had a larger stomach and subsisted on mainly vegetation, like modern non-human great apes.
In other words, she is a perfect blend between the two creatures, humans and apes. She is therefore considered our ancestor, because we have her traits.
I can talk about this more at length if you'd like
I also enjoy just kind of imaging things. So like this all makes sense. I have somewhat an understanding of the processes of science and the scientific method, as an engineer. My conclusion was just that noone can really confirm which theory is true, or if both are somehow true.
TheKongoEmpire
A Wilsonian Garveyite
just remember its roots were in giving a scientific reason to put anglo-nordic people above your black ass
these folk started with cranial measurements and observations of facial symmetries where even the irish were considered lesser as well.
On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia
between this thread and the other one, people dont seem to understand that data and "evidence" can be contested and attacked.
EDIT - 1 star for the politically motivated poll options
So how or where did humans come from?
Can you deconstruct the theory of evolution? What exactly about it is false or wrong?
we were spoken into existence and then weeded down to a single man and his sons (Noah)So how or where did humans come from?
Can you deconstruct the theory of evolution? What exactly about it is false or wrong?
and from them the whole world was populated, what actually transpired before Noah (where men lived 700-900 years) is hard to discern.
as far as evolution, its assumption is that we descend from common ancestors but these common ancestors are rarely identified and when they do it is either shaky fossil records or attempted DNA matches and as someone else said here we have 96% similar DNA to fish...
maybe egypt knows something with this
Science eventually leads back to God
Actually, what you said isn't true. Genesis 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. God is not subject to time, space or matter as He is outside of it. If you choose to believe something came from nothing you would be a hypocrite. You believe the entire universe came...
www.thecoli.com
Its called a "Theory" is we do not know if this happens anywhere else because we have only seen life on earth
Its obvious we come from a common ancestor, every living thing has DNAwe were spoken into existence and then weeded down to a single man and his sons (Noah)
and from them the whole world was populated, what actually transpired before Noah (where men lived 700-900 years) is hard to discern.
as far as evolution, its assumption is that we descend from common ancestors but these common ancestors are rarely identified and when they do it is either shaky fossil records or attempted DNA matches and as someone else said here we have 96% similar DNA to fish...
maybe egypt knows something with this
Science eventually leads back to God
Actually, what you said isn't true. Genesis 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. God is not subject to time, space or matter as He is outside of it. If you choose to believe something came from nothing you would be a hypocrite. You believe the entire universe came...
its assumed that the function of DNA is just a record. when it could be like a living computer
thus why I say the evolution argument is actually holding back genetic science because of the focus they have
all signs point to DNA having a sophisticated language arguably more complex than our own
@Complexion remember the Dogon said a dolphin man came to them