Top Ten Scientific Facts Why: Evolution is False and Impossible!

[Bladers]

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

http://www.biblelife.org/tweety.gif

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

[Legend of Josh]

I think we can all agree, religion/God debates aside, that evolution is no longer a theory; more like solidified fact.

Too many pro-creationists try to use science and also deny evolution as pro-arguments for God. We should simply do as the Bible teaches us, and believe based on faith and not trying to find factual evidence (or deny obvious factual science) in God.

[DeuceWallaces]

:oldlol:

[OhNoTimNoSho]

By the time I got to #2 I was so annoyed I had to stop reading.

[Bladers]

By the time I got to #2 I was so annoyed I had to stop reading.

Why don't you put your feelings aside for once in your life and your biased view as-well and actually read it from a neutral stand point.

[rezznor]

Where Bladers gets his "facts":


http://img.yawoot.com/c17306a724eee6d713da1d7589d4fbf7.jpg

[Bladers]

I think we can all agree, religion/God debates aside, that evolution is no longer a theory; more like solidified fact.

Too many pro-creationists try to use science and also deny evolution as pro-arguments for God. We should simply do as the Bible teaches us, and believe based on faith and not trying to find factual evidence (or deny obvious factual science) in God.

Its a flawed theory to begin with, it never has and never will be a fact.
There is absolutely no evidence that supports it. Reading the top ten list in the opening post are facts about evolution.

Take a moment to read it slowly.

[Bladers]

Do you accept evolution on the basis of whether or not its true.
Do you actually look closely at the supposed evidences? Asked the hard questions? Researched? Think? Used abit of logic in examining what you are told?

Or do you just accept it because its anti-god?

[Jimmy2k8]

Is.....is that you Kent Hovind?:oldlol:

[rezznor]

It seems like every one accepts evolution because its anti-god but not weather or not its true or not.

Do people actually look at the supposed evidences? Asked questions? Researched? Think? Used abit of logic?


the world was created in 7 days. logical

noah put a pair of every animal onto a huge boat and floated around for 40 days. logical.

noah lived to be over 900 years old. logical.

a virgin human female somehow got pregnant. logical.

Adam and Eve were the first humans, yet they only had 2 boys. where did Cain find his wife? logical.

[bagelred]

"Dat dere proofs evuloochion be rong now lettuce danz."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgyg_5FF_0




http://marchhare.bc.ca/content/images/hillbilly1.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

Its a flawed theory to begin with, it never has and never will be a fact.
There is absolutely no evidence that supports it. Reading the top ten list in the opening post are facts about evolution.

Take a moment to read it slowly.

There is insurmountable evidence that evolution is a concrete theory.

[Miller for 3]

100% truth. Nice work OP. too bad so many brain dead morons will just come in here and post "lol fake and ghey"

[Take Your Lumps]

I think we can all agree, religion/God debates aside, that evolution is no longer a theory; more like solidified fact.

Too many pro-creationists try to use science and also deny evolution as pro-arguments for God. We should simply do as the Bible teaches us, and believe based on faith and not trying to find factual evidence (or deny obvious factual science) in God.

Evolution IS a theory that is based on hundreds of thousands of observable facts.

But I do agree with the rest of your post. If you happen to believe in gods, go for it. But don't let anti-science charlatans out there sell you snake oil rob you of the wonderously amazing tool that is the evolutionary process -- regardless of whether or not you believe a creator is necessary...facts are facts.

[Velocirap31]

Religion is dying, America is waaaay behind the rest of the modern world, but it is inevitable. Thank god to (no pun intended) because religion has held back humanity far too much. Who are you trying to convince Bladers? We weren't brain washed from an early age like you were, so we know you're full of shit. Good day.

[Godzuki]

lol fake and ghey

[Bladers]

the world was created in 7 days. logical


It wasn't created in 7 days, it was refurnished in 7 days.
These are quesitons that can be easily answered by being acquainted with the bible. Unfortunately 99% of evolution believers don't know a clue about what Evolution actually is and its assertions or whether or not its true. They just believe it because its an alternative to "God"



noah put a pair of every animal onto a huge boat and floated around for 40 days. logical.


What is illogical about that? You have a flood and a large ship? What am I missing?



noah lived to be over 900 years old. logical.


People in those days had a longer life span.



a virgin human female somehow got pregnant. logical.


How is that illogical? :wtf:
If I'm the creator of the universe, I will be able to impregnant you with what ever I want to.

That is totally logical.



Adam and Eve were the first humans, yet they only had 2 boys. where did Cain find his wife? logical.

They didn't have only 2 boys. The bible didn't state how many kids they had.
Cain most likely married his sister.

[Bladers]

There is insurmountable evidence that evolution is a concrete theory.


So why doesn't those evidence stand up to the top ten facts?
You mind posting some of those evidence lets examine them? Or do you claim there to be insurmountable evidence because someone told you there was?

Have you looked at those evidence yourself since you believe in the theory?
IF you haven't then why do you believe in something you have no idea about?
If you have then you will have no problem posting detailed description of those evidence and your own personal examination aswell.

[Take Your Lumps]

Put down the Ray Comfort books, close out that AnswersInGenesis tab, and read something by Francis Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) (Director of the Human Genome Project & Evangelical Christian) - that might be a good start.

If you're going to be a Christian at the very least have the decency to be a well-informed one on the topic of evolution.

[DeuceWallaces]

1) Those top ten statements are baseless and asinine.

2) I have looked at the insurmountable evidence myself. I have studied it for many years and continue to work in the field now. Specifically, I'm most familiar with plant systematics and paleobotany.

[Droid101]

Theory isn't the same as Scientific Theory.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. (From wiki)

For example, the scientific theory of gravity has less supporting facts than the scientific theory of evolution.

I guess gravity doesn't exist!

[Miller for 3]

lol people still think we evolved from monkeys :wtf: smh at America's school system.

[Keith]

Put down the Ray Comfort books, close out that AnswersInGenesis tab, and read something by Francis Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) (Director of the Human Genome Project & Evangelical Christian) - that might be a good start.

If you're going to be a Christian at the very least have the decency to be a well-informed one on the topic of evolution.

Some guy writes a book on his theory on creation and people believe it? How gullible.

People thought it was fact the world was flat years ago when the bible said all along the earth was round....:facepalm

If you're looking for "facts" you won't find them.


This generation keeps asking for a sign.-Jesus

[Bladers]

Put down the Ray Comfort books, close out that AnswersInGenesis tab, and read something by Francis Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) (Director of the Human Genome Project & Evangelical Christian) - that might be a good start.

If you're going to be a Christian at the very least have the decency to be a well-informed one on the topic of evolution.

Since you are well informed on the topic of evolution, do you then mind addressing the ten issues in the OP.

And no I don't read Ray Comfort books, I actually dislike him and no, I don't visit AIG.

Since you know so well about evolution, why don't you post your knowledge here. Unless you are a brainwashed idiot who believes in something you have no clue whatsoever about and only believes in it because its an alternative to idea of "God".

[Take Your Lumps]

http://theherokids.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/jackie-chan.jpg

[step_back]

Bladers is trolling. No way he is serious.:roll:

[Take Your Lumps]

Since you are well informed on the topic of evolution, do you then mind addressing the ten issues in the OP.

And no I don't read Ray Comfort books, I actually dislike him and no, I don't visit AIG.

Since you know so well about evolution, why don't you post your knowledge here. Unless you are a brainwashed idiot who believes in something you have no clue whatsoever about and only believes in it because its an alternative to idea of "God".

Here's a good critique, it's a start:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2332377/

Knucklehead -- evolutionary theory IS NOT an alternative idea to "God". There are millions of scientifically literate theists who accept scientific facts and hold onto their faith.

[Bladers]

1) Those top ten statements are baseless and asinine.

2) I have looked at the insurmountable evidence myself. I have studied it for many years and continue to work in the field now. Specifically, I'm most familiar with plant systematics and paleobotany.

OMGOSH why don't you enlighten us on those insurmountable evidence you speak of. Talk about them here. What are you waiting for?

Unless you only glanced over them and said, yep yep their are 100% without actually using your brain and examine them thoroughly to see whether they are right or wrong.

Secondly, why don't you actually address that list of 10.

[Bladers]

Religion is dying, America is waaaay behind the rest of the modern world, but it is inevitable. Thank god to (no pun intended) because religion has held back humanity far too much. Who are you trying to convince Bladers? We weren't brain washed from an early age like you were, so we know you're full of shit. Good day.


Isn't it amazing that people claim religious people are retarded and brain washed and yet when someone posts an examination of what they believe they throw it down without coming up with a legitimate response to it and then accuse the person of being brain washed and retarded?

Who is the brain washed individual here who believes in something he can't back up and has no clue whatsoever about, who hasn't examined what he believe whether or not its backed up with real evidence and whether or not the evidence are true.

Who is the brain washed individual?
Who is the idiot? Who is the simpleton?
Who is the fool?
Who is the one deceived?

[DeuceWallaces]

OMGOSH why don't you enlighten us on those insurmountable evidence you speak of. Talk about them here. What are you waiting for?

Unless you only glanced over them and said, yep yep their are 100% without actually using your brain and examine them thoroughly to see whether they are right or wrong.

Secondly, why don't you actually address that list of 10.

That list is ridiculous.

I don't have time to sit here and teach you molecular systematics.

Knock yourself out:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=molecular+systematics&x=0&y=0

[Droid101]

Who is the brain washed individual?
Who is the idiot? Who is the simpleton?
Who is the fool?
Who is the one deceived?
You are. The last two "facts" presented in the first post have literally nothing to do with evolution, whatsoever.

I'm convinced, you must be trolling. Nobody is this stupid. :facepalm

[Velocirap31]

Isn't it amazing that people claim religious people are retarded and brain washed and yet when someone posts an examination of what they believe they throw it down without coming up with a legitimate response to it and then accuse the person of being brain washed and retarded?

Who is the brain washed individual here who believes in something he can't back up and has no clue whatsoever about, who hasn't examined what he believe whether or not its backed up with real evidence and whether or not the evidence are true.

Who is the brain washed individual?
Who is the idiot? Who is the simpleton?
Who is the fool?
Who is the one deceived?

Most of us here weren't force-fed a religion at all. We went to school and learned the facts we know and came to a decision ourselves. That's why we're not brainwashed. You can't brainwash yourself. You can say the school system brainwashed us, but they just teach it, they don't preach it. :bowdown:

[Bladers]

Here's a good critique, it's a start:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2332377/

Knucklehead -- evolutionary theory IS NOT an alternative idea to "God". There are millions of scientifically literate theists who accept scientific facts and hold onto their faith.

Why are you desperately searching for someone else repulta? Why don't you give your own?

You claim to believe in evotion and you have to so search for answers and for data to give a simple response.

Looks like you are clueless to what you actually believe in.

IF someone ask me a question about God or the Bible, I don't go around on google looking for someone else's response. I know what I believe in very well.
You on the other hand is totally out of touch like the other 99% of evolution believers.

[step_back]

Why are you desperately searching for someone else repulta? Why don't you give your own?

You claim to believe in evotion and you have to so search for answers and for data to give a simple response.

Looks like you are clueless to what you actually believe in.

IF someone ask me a question about God or the Bible, I don't go around on google looking for someone else's response. I know what I believe in very well.
You on the other hand is totally out of touch like the other 99% of evolution believers.

It's easy to answer his responses when you're talking out of your arse.

[Bladers]

Most of us here weren't force-fed a religion at all. We went to school and learned the facts we know and came to a decision ourselves. That's why we're not brainwashed. You can't brainwash yourself. You can say the school system brainwashed us, but they just teach it, they don't preach it. :bowdown:

THEN POST THE FACTS, RESPOND TO THE LIST IN THE OP!

But you can't because you are brain washed!
Like I said 99% of evolution believers are cheerleaders.

You only find once in a blue moon someone who actually knows about evolution, who actually researched it and tried to discover whats true and what's not. Who didn't take in whatever people said, but reasoned with his logic.

These days you have people as young as 13,14,15,16,17,18 who believe in evolution and if you asked them to give a lecture about it.

You will discover they are absolutely CLUELESS!

[Droid101]

But you can't be cause you are brain washed!
Like I said 99% of Christians are cheerleaders.

You only find one in a while someone who actually knows about Christianity, who actually researched it and tried to discover whats true and what's not. Who didn't take in whatever people said, but reasoned with his logic.

These days you have people as young as 13,14,15,16,17,18 who believe in God and if you asked them to give a lecture about it.

You will discover they are absolutely CLUELESS!

[Velocirap31]

THEN POST THE FACTS, RESPOND TO THE LIST IN THE OP!

But you can't because you are brain washed!
Like I said 99% of evolution believers are cheerleaders.

You only find one in a while someone who actually knows about evolution, who actually researched it and tried to discover whats true and what's not. Who didn't take in whatever people said, but reasoned with his logic.

These days you have people as young as 13,14,15,16,17,18 who believe in evolution and if you asked them to give a lecture about it.

You will discover they are absolutely CLUELESS!

That'll take a while, but I'll try to if you insist.

[Kungfro]

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

http://www.biblelife.org/tweety.gif

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.


So whoever wrote this thinks "evolutionists" believe some kind of rat creature grew nubs that turned into wings? Is it really that hard to do any kind of research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds


Cursorial ("from the ground up") theory

The cursorial theory of the origin of flight was first proposed by Samuel Wendell Williston, and elaborated upon by Baron Nopcsa. This hypothesis proposes that some fast-running animals with long tails used their arms to keep their balance while running. Modern versions of this theory differ in many details from the Williston-Nopcsa version, mainly as a result of discoveries since Nopcsa's time.
Nopcsa theorized that increasing the surface area of the outstretched arms could have helped small cursorial predators to keep their balance, and that the scales of the forearms became elongated, evolving into feathers. The feathers could also have been used as a trap to catch insects or other prey. Progressively, the animals would have leapt for longer distances, helped by their evolving wings. Nopcsa also proposed that there were three main stages in the evolution of flight. First, passive flight was realized, in which the developed wing structures served as a sort of parachute. Second, active flight was possible, in which the animal achieved flight by flapping its wings. He used Archaeopteryx as an example of this second stage. Finally, birds gained the ability to soar.


Arboreal ("from the trees down") theory

Most versions of the arboreal hypothesis state that the ancestors of birds were very small dinosaurs that lived in trees, springing from branch to branch. This small dinosaur already had feathers, which were co-opted by evolution to produce longer, stiffer forms that were useful in aerodynamics, eventually producing wings. Wings would have then evolved and become increasingly refined as devices to give the leaper more control, to parachute, to glide, and to fly in stepwise fashion. The arboreal hypothesis also notes that, for arboreal animals, aerodynamics are far more energy efficient, since such animals simply fall in order to achieve minimum gliding speeds.

[Droid101]

So whoever wrote this thinks "evolutionists" believe some kind of rat creature grew nubs that turned into wings? Is it really that hard to do any kind of research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
I think you broke Bladers' brain.

[Kungfro]

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover


During the next two decades, NASA will conduct several missions to address whether life ever existed on Mars. The search begins with determining whether the Martian environment was ever suitable for life. Life, as humans understand it, requires water, hence the history of water on Mars is critical to finding out if the Martian environment was ever conducive to life. Although the Mars Exploration Rovers do not have the ability to detect life directly, they offer important information on the habitability of the environment in the planet's history

[d.bball.guy]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/did%20not%20read/grand/hvwe28.jpg.gif

[rezznor]

If I'm the creator of the universe, I will be able to impregnant you with what ever I want to.

That is totally logical.





In other words, you have no real explanation for immaculate conception so you resort to "the magical being in the sky who can do anything he wants" to back up your logic. How convenient.

[Nick Young]

There is insurmountable evidence that evolution is a concrete theory.
There was also "insurmountable evidence" for thousands of years that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets rotated around Earth, not the other way around.

There was "insurmountable evidence" that it didn't matter if you cleaned your surgery tools, you should carry on cutting someone open with a rusty blade anyways.

There was insurmountable evidence that the Earth was flat for hundreds of years.

Guess who turned out wrong, bozo

[Bladers]

In other words, you have no real explanation for immaculate conception so you resort to "the magical being in the sky who can do anything he wants" to back up your logic. How convenient.

My proof is that an intelligent being who supposedly created this vast and elegant universe and its inhabitants and the whole works, would be powerful enough to accomplish that little task.

Its quite logical if you accept the formal.

[Bladers]

I think you broke Bladers' brain.

Sorry, I went to take a shower. I'm back though.
I will be momentarily leaving to get some groceries. Expecting some good response when I return and will address them all.

[Velocirap31]

[QUOTE=Bladers]The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

http://www.biblelife.org/tweety.gif

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

These birds didn't evolve a wing, they originally had correct wings, but these wings devolved over time because the birds were not using them. If humans stopped walking altogether, eventually our legs would be useless and shrink significantly due to the lack of muscle growth. An alien race would laugh at how we had evolved these useless legs for no reason.

The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

How could birds not evolve to fly? They obviously did at some point so why would the theory of evolution denounce something that is obvious, it is clear that they did not. Flying isn't an advantage if you have no where to go or predators to flee from. Flying takes a massive amount of energy as well, energy that requires a lot of food. Birds with undeveloped wings are not in danger from predators to the point where their species is at risk of extinction, they have developed larger bodies and powerful beaks in order to hunt on land and defend themselves if necessary.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

We would need every specie of hominid in the chain in order to not have any gaps. This is impossible because the fraction of remains that fossilize is less than 1% and even then the conditions must be perfect (no bacteria, no erosion over time). We will always be discovering more 'links,' but the odds are low even though we know where to look. There are millions of species that we will never know existed because they have no fossilized evidence on the planet.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Debunking a theory based on the fact that we can't currently duplicate it doesn't make much sense. Technology is capable of things that would have seemed impossible only 30 years ago, such as wireless chargers (those are cool). This is just a matter of time, the conditions need to be perfect, but when you have trillions of bacteria chilling in a storm for a few billion years, the odds get pretty good.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Males have a Y chromosome and females have two XX's, you got it backwards. This baby could be born with a 'defect' on its own. This happens all the time, but usually these defects are negative (autism, club foot, etc.) However, when there are only hundreds of you and one offspring has an apparent 'defect,' this defect can be spread easily if it is desirable to the opposite sex (e.g. pretty peacock feathers, whatever). The offspring of this individual will likely have the defect and it'll spread throughout the group until the non-defect individuals die off and are replaced. Defects aren't always negative, they may give an apparent advantage and thus be desirable to the opposite sex, that is all evolution needs to begin.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

What? Usually a change in DNA will result in severe cancer. Not sure what you mean? The fact that DNA 'changes back' as you say means that it changes itself.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

How is the second law of thermodynamics proven to be correct? Through countless tests and research, hmmm sounds familiar. You're trying to disprove one man-made theory with another man-made theory, no dice.

[Velocirap31]

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

You can genetically change by not affecting your chromosome count. You are aware that some species change sex on a whim? Look it up, its some kind of frog or toad last I checked. I'm getting lazy now.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

This is the question science is trying to figure out. Using a particle accelerator, matter can be instantaneously created out of nothing, so that's a start. However, this matter is quickly destroyed by its own antimatter which we are still trying to understand.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

If the water is gone, why would the life still be there? Why would complex life be expected to be there if the odds of it spontaneously occurring are so low? The period in which life could have began on Mars was not as long as Earth's opportunity was, thus decreased odds. The fossils are underground, so the rover digging for a few hours here and there will be as successful as you in your back yard, good luck. It is difficult to find anything on a foreign planet when you don't really know where to look. If Mars is searched profusely with no resultant signs of past life, then it is clear it didn't get a chance to being with. Water doesn't = life, water = chance of life. This is because water offers movement which is necessary for primitive forms of life to collide into each other. Theoretically, any form of liquid could do the same job as water.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.[/QUOTE]

Do you know how long radio waves take to get anywhere? We are talking about the speed of sound, that is slow by military standards today. We would have to have very close neighbours who are currently as advanced as we are right now, not likely. Space is so large it is beyond comprehension, even light is way too slow to get anywhere.

[DeuceWallaces]

There was also "insurmountable evidence" for thousands of years that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets rotated around Earth, not the other way around.

There was "insurmountable evidence" that it didn't matter if you cleaned your surgery tools, you should carry on cutting someone open with a rusty blade anyways.

There was insurmountable evidence that the Earth was flat for hundreds of years.

Guess who turned out wrong, bozo

There was no tested evidence for what you describe. Hence, the incorrect assumptions.

The second someone, say, tried to sail off the edge of the earth and ended where they started or perform serious astronomical tests we knew otherwise.

[Nick Young]

There was no tested evidence for what you describe. Hence, the incorrect assumptions.

The second someone, say, tried to sail off the edge of the earth and ended where they started or perform serious astronomical tests we knew otherwise.
No way to prove evolution unless you jump to a million conclusions regarding fossil evidence, or live to be a million years old yourself and actually witness evolution and natural selection happening on the scale it is said to be.

That is why everyone who puts their blind faith and trust into science is an idiot. Because science always turns out to be wrong.

[rezznor]

My proof is that an intelligent being who supposedly created this vast and elegant universe and its inhabitants and the whole works, would be powerful enough to accomplish that little task.

Its quite logical if you accept the formal.
So your proof is your faith. How convenient.

[Kungfro]

This is a good video for you Bladers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=relmfu

[bagelred]

My proof is that an intelligent being who supposedly created this vast and elegant universe and its inhabitants and the whole works, would be powerful enough to accomplish that little task.

Its quite logical if you accept the formal.

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID22282/images/huh.jpg

[Take Your Lumps]

Why are you desperately searching for someone else repulta? Why don't you give your own?

You claim to believe in evotion and you have to so search for answers and for data to give a simple response.

Looks like you are clueless to what you actually believe in.

IF someone ask me a question about God or the Bible, I don't go around on google looking for someone else's response. I know what I believe in very well.
You on the other hand is totally out of touch like the other 99% of evolution believers.

This guy takes 10 seconds out of his day to copy and paste this knuckle-dragging list and expects people to write a complete dissertation on it.

I really don't think this guy is for real.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

http://www.yourfunnystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/trolling-meant-something.jpg

[CLE[216]]

My proof is that an intelligent being who supposedly created this vast and elegant universe and its inhabitants and the whole works, would be powerful enough to accomplish that little task.

Its quite logical if you accept the formal.

Please, Bladers, enlighten me. There's no doubt that the sun makes this planet habitable, as it provides heat and light for all living things. Why, then, would an infinitely intelligent creator design the sun to emit cancer causing radiation?

[CLE[216]]

This guy takes 10 seconds out of his day to copy and paste this knuckle-dragging list and expects people to write a complete dissertation on it.

I really don't think this guy is for real.

It's impossible to differentiate between a parody of extremism and actual extremism on the internet.

Poe's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)

[DeuceWallaces]

No way to prove evolution unless you jump to a million conclusions regarding fossil evidence, or live to be a million years old yourself and actually witness evolution and natural selection happening on the scale it is said to be.

That is why everyone who puts their blind faith and trust into science is an idiot. Because science always turns out to be wrong.

There is significant molecular and fossil evidence for evolution.

[Timmy D for MVP]

No way to prove evolution unless you jump to a million conclusions regarding fossil evidence, or live to be a million years old yourself and actually witness evolution and natural selection happening on the scale it is said to be.

That is why everyone who puts their blind faith and trust into science is an idiot. Because science always turns out to be wrong.

Jump to scientific conclusions supported by the evidence they've collected.

And science always turns out to be wrong? Interesting, everything that you use, down to your computer and your cell phone and inside your body? That's all science. Better pray to God that science is not always wrong...

[CLE[216]]

No way to prove evolution unless you jump to a million conclusions regarding fossil evidence, or live to be a million years old yourself and actually witness evolution and natural selection happening on the scale it is said to be.

That is why everyone who puts their blind faith and trust into science is an idiot. Because science always turns out to be wrong.

Then throw away your computer, your television, your cell phone, and whatever modern day luxuries you take for granted, and go live like the Amish. Because science is the reason these things were invented, and you clearly don't trust science.

Also, your ignorance regarding evolution shows that you know nothing about it. I suggest reading up on how evolutionary theory was formed.

[Droid101]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326140712AAmJYG6

ctrl+c, ctrl+v, add some bold-tags and a pic of a bird. Trolling for Dummies.

I'm impressed.
Should I copypasta the answers, too?

1. Wings evolved from arms, they didn't just grow out as stubs. There were many feathered dinosaurs that couldn't fly, some of the smaller species, perhaps with unusually long arms or feathers, could glide from trees or big rocks and escape predators. This increased their chances of survival, so they passed these genes on to their offspring.

2. Actually, they DO do that with elephants and giraffes. There have been thousands upon thousands of "transitional fossils" found for a huge different number of species today. But even if there hadn't, there is a vast enough mountain of evidence to prove evolution anyways.

3. Your knowledge of abiogenesis is sorely lacking. First of all, it is an entirely different theory from evolution, describing completely different things. Even if abiogenesis was proven incorrect, evolution would still be true. That being said, scientists a few months back managed to spontaneously generate RNA through a very simple process in conditions that would have existed in primordial Earth. No, we haven't figured out every step, to creating life, but we have plenty of reason to believe it's possible.

4. Environmental factors include things like radiation or chemical processes that affect the DNA itself, not things that affect the mother and she goes and "changes" her eggs. That doesn't make any sense.

5. This process isn't perfect, and it always allows some changes. These changes can be beneficial or harmful, or not even really make a difference. If they're beneficial, they're more likely to be passed on to future generations and acquire greater and greater changes. If they're harmful, they probably won't. If they're not really either, they could be passed on (or not), and could be used as a basis for a different physical change.

6. No, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a closed system will always increase unless there is energy moving into the system. Attempts to dumb it down for people to understand have led to the misconception that "order always moves towards chaos." You're right that it would be impossible for life to form and evolution to happen in a closed system, with no energy input. Put we've got a huge amount of energy moving into the system, and it comes from that big bright thing in the sky. Without it, life wouldn't be possible.

[rezznor]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326140712AAmJYG6

ctrl+c, ctrl+v, add some bold-tags and a pic of a bird. Trolling for Dummies.

I'm impressed.
good find

[verylegit]

There is insurmountable evidence that evolution is a concrete theory.
but at the end of the day it is still simply a _ _ _ _ _ _.

[brwnman]

They didn't have only 2 boys. The bible didn't state how many kids they had.
Cain most likely married his sister.

I don't feel like arguing and debating really, but to this, that would be wrong. Adam and Eve were the first created human beings; doesn't mean they were the only or the last ones created...

[bagelred]

I don't feel like arguing and debating really, but to this, that would be wrong. Adam and Eve were the first created human beings;

:wtf:





http://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gifhttp://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gifhttp://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gif

[brwnman]

:wtf:





http://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gifhttp://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gifhttp://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gif

you do realize I'm making the argument from the bible's point of view right? oh wait, you're just mad 'cause I called you a f@g. Nice...

[Droid101]

but at the end of the day it is still simply a _ _ _ _ _ _.
Ugh. Do you realize that all sciences are called "theories?" This doesn't mean they aren't peer reviewed, tested, and as close to fact as possible.

Theory of Thermodynamics.
Theory of Relativity
Theory of Gravity.
Theory of Evolution

All the same. Please, stop it. The use of the word "Theory" when it comes to a scientific theory is different from the definition of the word 'theory' when used in any other context.

Please, read a book.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Ugh. Do you realize that all sciences are called "theories?" This doesn't mean they aren't peer reviewed, tested, and as close to fact as possible.

Theory of Thermodynamics.
Theory of Relativity
Theory of Gravity.
Theory of Evolution

All the same. Please, stop it. The use of the word "Theory" when it comes to a scientific theory is different from the definition of the word 'theory' when used in any other context.

Please, read a book.

Beat me to it.

[JMT]

Because science always turns out to be wrong.

:facepalm

[DeuceWallaces]

but at the end of the day it is still simply a _ _ _ _ _ _.

Obviously you don't have a clear understanding of what a scientific theory is.

[verylegit]

Ugh. Do you realize that all sciences are called "theories?" This doesn't mean they aren't peer reviewed, tested, and as close to fact as possible.

Theory of Thermodynamics.
Theory of Relativity
Theory of Gravity.
Theory of Evolution

All the same. Please, stop it. The use of the word "Theory" when it comes to a scientific theory is different from the definition of the word 'theory' when used in any other context.

Please, read a book. why not? it's UNPROVEN.

typical blind faith believer, sorry no irony here.
sign up for college. take intro physics, bio, chemistry, etc. conclusion: OMFG, Darwin is GENIUS!

You're going to sit here and tell me that the even though the Bible has scientific accuracies, and the Universe is one fine tuned machine that makes life possible for what we call humans and plenty of other life was all self-created? idiots like yourself open a text book and read and allow to be taught instead of LEARNING through self discovery. i don't care what your major is, what your gpa is, all that is garbage

take a hint from Luke, he gathered public records and testimonies and wrote an incredible book, told us about Jesus and his magnificent life. he didn't buy into common concepts.

[Droid101]

why not? it's UNPROVEN.

typical blind faith believer, sorry no irony here.
sign up for college. take intro physics, bio, chemistry, etc. OMFG, Darwin is GENIUS!
Intro?

I've taken more advanced physics courses than you could possibly wrap your little head around.

[verylegit]

Intro?

I've taken more advanced physics courses than you could possibly wrap your little head around. no humility exists today. keep wasting your time reading those worthless textbooks and going to useless labs. :facepalm

the purpose of life is not to find new subatomic particles and help make technology better for a worthless society on the path of their own self destruction. i'm sure you're content with the delusion that you're a smart guy and you know a lot about physics when in reality, all those theories, as good as they may be, as sound as the math may be, as much sense as they make and as much time invested in them, you haven't even scratched the surface. if life as we know it, continued for another handful of centuries, the concepts of physics will have changed vastly, as they continually do, yet humans will still be on square 1, clueless as to the origins of humanity. well no clueless, just refusing to acknowledge the truth.

difference between your textbooks and the bible is that the scriptures encourage its readers to self discover the truth, you're over priced textbooks mandate you read that sh*t they've printed. and who are you to argue? the chairman of physics department at your university has chosen that book for your course and you're a couple of benjamins in too deep to argue.

[Droid101]

no humility exists today. keep wasting your time reading those worthless textbooks and going to useless labs. :facepalm

the purpose of life is not to find new subatomic particles and help make technology better for a worthless society on the path of their own self destruction. i'm sure you're content with the delusion that you're a smart guy and you know a lot about physics when in reality, all those theories, as good as they may be, as sound as the math may be, as much sense as they make and as much time invested in them, you haven't even scratched the surface. if life as we know it, continued for another handful of centuries, the concepts of physics will have changed vastly, as they continually do, yet humans will still be on square 1, clueless as to the origins of humanity. well no clueless, just refusing to acknowledge the truth.

difference between your textbooks and the bible is that the scriptures encourage its readers to self discover the truth, you're over priced textbooks mandate you read that sh*t they've printed. and who are you to argue? the chairman of physics department at your university has chosen that book for your course and you're a couple of benjamins in too deep to argue.
Typical idiot.

"Don't learn things, just read the Bible!"

And you wonder why American education sucks these days.

[ballup]

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
It's the other way around. Proof read before you steal someone's troll post next time.

[verylegit]

Typical idiot.

"Don't learn things, just read the Bible!"

And you wonder why American education sucks these days.
hey now! you're using my response style. you don't learn things, you simply read textbooks, do your assignments, labs, w/e junk and go on to believe that this infinitely beautiful universe has no engineer. you, of all people should know how complex the universe is. use your brain kid, seriously. question everything, proffesors become upset at this because they make it seem as if it's common knowledge that evolution is a fact. tell your proffesor to stop reading journals and start questioning everything instead of simply believing. fact is, the scriptures are more sound than evolution.

american education sucks because all you normal college go-ers decide to consume whatever information is thrown at you.

[verylegit]

Typical idiot.

"Don't learn things, just read the Bible!"

And you wonder why American education sucks these days.
also, by your criteria, that gentleman who wrote on gravity, advanced mathematics and other great contributions to science, is an idiot.
:pimp:

[Timmy D for MVP]

no humility exists today. keep wasting your time reading those worthless textbooks and going to useless labs. :facepalm

the purpose of life is not to find new subatomic particles and help make technology better for a worthless society on the path of their own self destruction. i'm sure you're content with the delusion that you're a smart guy and you know a lot about physics when in reality, all those theories, as good as they may be, as sound as the math may be, as much sense as they make and as much time invested in them, you haven't even scratched the surface. if life as we know it, continued for another handful of centuries, the concepts of physics will have changed vastly, as they continually do, yet humans will still be on square 1, clueless as to the origins of humanity. well no clueless, just refusing to acknowledge the truth.

difference between your textbooks and the bible is that the scriptures encourage its readers to self discover the truth, you're over priced textbooks mandate you read that sh*t they've printed. and who are you to argue? the chairman of physics department at your university has chosen that book for your course and you're a couple of benjamins in too deep to argue.

I'm not sure how it works in Physics but my History professors themselves pick out the material for their own courses. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

Secondly your right science is ever changing but to say that the growth hasn't allowed us to understand our Universe better is really really... well stupid.

And finally I never understood why some religious people just talk down science like it's the plague. Some theists have accepted the beauty of science as God's tools. If you can't look around you right now and realize that physics happens all the time and is provable all the time and we can predict things correctly just about all the time then idk what to say.

Technology for a worthless society? How about technology to improve living and help fix things that the Creator seemed to have overlook. Why would God put these things in place, and then give us the tools to fix them unless it was in fact important to discover particles and improve technology?

/Rantthatmaynotmakesense

[RoseCity07]

Evolution is false because you say so. K.

[RaininThrees]

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.


This is the most specious argument people use against evolution when they have no idea what they're talking about. It's the perfect argument too, because you can never be wrong. For Example:

Let's say Species "A" evolved into Species "C"

A ----------------- > C

The above argument supposes that there MUST be a Species "B" to get from "A" to "C"

"A" ------> "B " -------> "C"

This creates 2 NEW gaps (Species "AB" and Species "BC") that must be found to satisfy the argument above.

"A" ----> "AB" ----> "B" ----> "BC" ----> "C"

There are now 4 gaps. And it goes on, ad infinitum.

It's an evolutionary version of one of Zeno's Paradoxes.

[Bladers]

These birds didn't evolve a wing, they originally had correct wings, but these wings devolved over time because the birds were not using them. If humans stopped walking altogether, eventually our legs would be useless and shrink significantly due to the lack of muscle growth. An alien race would laugh at how we had evolved these useless legs for no reason.



Nope thats not what evolution at all. It says that dinos evolved into birds (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lbbDbLgdqpYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds+evolution+birds+grew+wings&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com) and that the birds didn't have wings to begin with but feathers but then grew them after millions of years.

Sounds unlogical? yes.

Let me quote this:

"Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story.

The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help."



How could birds not evolve to fly? They obviously did at some point so why would the theory of evolution denounce something that is obvious, it is clear that they did not. Flying isn't an advantage if you have no where to go or predators to flee from. Flying takes a massive amount of energy as well, energy that requires a lot of food. Birds with undeveloped wings are not in danger from predators to the point where their species is at risk of extinction, they have developed larger bodies and powerful beaks in order to hunt on land and defend themselves if necessary.


So how did birds accomplish this plan of reducing their weight in order to fly. Remember evolutionists claim this took place over millions of years.
So how did they keep it going? So they had a multi million year plan in place? That's nonsense.



We would need every specie of hominid in the chain in order to not have any gaps. This is impossible because the fraction of remains that fossilize is less than 1% and even then the conditions must be perfect (no bacteria, no erosion over time). We will always be discovering more 'links,' but the odds are low even though we know where to look. There are millions of species that we will never know existed because they have no fossilized evidence on the planet.


http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/12279_Ardi.png

This is supposedly the closest missing link to humans, human ancestors.

You proved my point, a newly discovered species DOES NOT prove a "missing link" thousands of species are extinct. Just because you dig up one and say, hey that's the human ancestors, doesn't make it so. Its just another extinct species, doesn't even look human at all.

Charles Darwin said HIMSELF that fossils of the transitional links between species are required to be found for his "Theory of Evolution." to be considered true. Well guess what? THEY HAVEN'T BEEN FOUND. And this new age evolutionists keep pushing the propaganda.




Debunking a theory based on the fact that we can't currently duplicate it doesn't make much sense. Technology is capable of things that would have seemed impossible only 30 years ago, such as wireless chargers (those are cool). This is just a matter of time, the conditions need to be perfect, but when you have trillions of bacteria chilling in a storm for a few billion years, the odds get pretty good.



So you just admitted that scientist doesn't have the proof("yet" you say) don't you see that means evolution is false? Don't be naive.




Males have a Y chromosome and females have two XX's, you got it backwards. This baby could be born with a 'defect' on its own. This happens all the time, but usually these defects are negative (autism, club foot, etc.) However, when there are only hundreds of you and one offspring has an apparent 'defect,' this defect can be spread easily if it is desirable to the opposite sex (e.g. pretty peacock feathers, whatever). The offspring of this individual will likely have the defect and it'll spread throughout the group until the non-defect individuals die off and are replaced. Defects aren't always negative, they may give an apparent advantage and thus be desirable to the opposite sex, that is all evolution needs to begin.


environmental conditions which evolutionists cling to does not in any way alter the chromosomes in the sperm. Which part of that fact do you disagree with?

Chilling in a storm for billions of years doesn't change a chromo...




What? Usually a change in DNA will result in severe cancer. Not sure what you mean? The fact that DNA 'changes back' as you say means that it changes itself.


Exactly these changes which are rare, one in a million cause disease and damage not improve a species. In other words; Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.



How is the second law of thermodynamics proven to be correct? Through countless tests and research, hmmm sounds familiar. You're trying to disprove one man-made theory with another man-made theory, no dice.

Exactly thermodynamics is proven, evolution is not.
I can prove gravity by jumping up. I can't prove evolution.
Charles Darwin said the missing transitional link is needed to prove evolution, none have been found so far.

[Bladers]

You can genetically change by not affecting your chromosome count. You are aware that some species change sex on a whim? Look it up, its some kind of frog or toad last I checked. I'm getting lazy now.



Another unproven assertion, don't ask me to google it, link it up yourself or else don't assert it into the discussion.



This is the question science is trying to figure out. Using a particle accelerator, matter can be instantaneously created out of nothing, so that's a start. However, this matter is quickly destroyed by its own antimatter which we are still trying to understand.


Read what you just wrote.

"Using a particle accelerator"
"created out of nothing"

:facepalm




If the water is gone, why would the life still be there? Why would complex life be expected to be there if the odds of it spontaneously occurring are so low? The period in which life could have began on Mars was not as long as Earth's opportunity was, thus decreased odds. The fossils are underground, so the rover digging for a few hours here and there will be as successful as you in your back yard, good luck. It is difficult to find anything on a foreign planet when you don't really know where to look. If Mars is searched profusely with no resultant signs of past life, then it is clear it didn't get a chance to being with. Water doesn't = life, water = chance of life. This is because water offers movement which is necessary for primitive forms of life to collide into each other. Theoretically, any form of liquid could do the same job as water.



But this further puts a damper on the evolution theory because NASA have searched and searched and have not found a single sign of life. But if evolution is true, some type of life would be flooding in almost every planet.




Do you know how long radio waves take to get anywhere? We are talking about the speed of sound, that is slow by military standards today. We would have to have very close neighbours who are currently as advanced as we are right now, not likely. Space is so large it is beyond comprehension, even light is way too slow to get anywhere.

If life had existed millions and billions of years ago in other planets/galaxies, won't there be advanced civilizations in some of them who would have sent streaming signals out millions of years ago that would be getting to us now?

But what is that I hear? crickets... crickets...
Dude, we are alone!

[Miller for 3]

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/humour/assets/primate_laughing.jpg

and some ppl here think that we evolved from that :facepalm

[Bladers]

']Please, Bladers, enlighten me. There's no doubt that the fire and rocks makes this planet habitable, as it provides heat and land for all living things. Why, then, would an infinitely intelligent creator design rocks that could hurt people, made fire that could burn people when put near your skin, made space uninhabitable without a space suit?

Fixed.

[Kblaze8855]

Ignoring for a moment that a good bit of the first post is just flat out nonsense that for the most part draws conclusions the information it gives has nothing to do with....



The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

Nobody saying that could have even looked into how its believed fish came to be on land. He skipped right over amphibians.

There are fish today that can walk on land and breathe a bit in both air and water...

But one couldnt just gradually come to stay on land more when they were the only animals that could do it and there were next to no predators out on land....

[Bladers]

:lol

no human with a brain believes that some dude was able to pack 2 from every species existing in the world on a freaking boat...... made of wood.... by a man........... troll
even the church guys have an "interpretation" for this

But you believe a thunder storm happened and created living things and that then evolved into a fish and then the fish after millions of years jumps out of water like goku and could breathe on land and then evolved into this species and into that species.

Let me quote with an example:

Evolutionists are now claiming that a dolphin captured with two little extra fins near the tail is proof that dolphins evolved from four-footed animals related to the dog.

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution-dolphin.jpg

Dolphin with four-wheel drive stuns the scientists - November 5, 2006. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-414678/Dolphin-wheel-drive-stuns-scientists.html)

"Experts believe that the dolphin's ancestor was a dog-like creature which roamed the earth many millions of years ago. And now the extraordinary discovery of a bottlenosed dolphin with an extra set of flippers has provided living proof of the theory. At first glance it looks like any other of its kind. But closer inspection reveals a rogue set of rear fins. Each the size of a human hand, the fins are thought to be the remains of a pair of hind legs, adding to evidence that dolphins once walked on all fours."

This is nonsense, folks. First, evolutionists tell us that land animals evolved from sea creatures. Now they are trying a new approach, claiming sea creatures evolved from land animals. Dog are still dogs, but they claim that some of the dogs long ago evolved into dolphins. These "scientists" claim the dolphin evolved from the dog while the rest of the dogs didn't evolved into anything. They simply remained dogs.

These "scientists" are not scientists. No scientific evidence exists for these evolutionary theories. This article is an attempt to brainwash the naive. Don't be fooled by these claims. Evolutionists typically use words like "may have evolved" or ""probably evolved" because they lack scientific proof. The truth is obvious here.

This is simply one species that is very rare.

[shlver]

Evolution is fact. You are not even attacking evolution on most of the points in your OP.

[Keith]

A computer as complex as it is had a creator.

Same thing with the human brain.
Of all the things man has created it should be easy to understand.

The answer was always there people just wouldn't accept it. There is a higher being.

[Miller for 3]

Evolution is fact. You are not even attacking evolution on most of the points in your OP.

YA DOOD WE ARE ALL MONKEYS. LOOK AT OUR FUR COVERED BODIES AND TAILS!!1!1!!!11!!!!1:rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

[Bladers]

There is significant molecular and fossil evidence for evolution.

Charles Darwin said the transitional link of each species is required to prove his "theory of evolution".
Well none have been found.Now this is coming from the guy who started this whole propaganda.

[shlver]

Charles Darwin said the transitional link of each species is required to prove his "theory of evolution"

Now this is coming from the guy who created this whole propaganda.
Do you deny organisms change over time?

[Bladers]

Do you deny organisms change over time?

micro evolution =/= macro evolution

:no:

[shlver]

micro evolution =/= macro evolution

:no:
What's your definition of macro evolution? Changes in phenotype? Incompatibility of mating? Speciation?

[rezznor]

Nope thats not what evolution at all. It says that dinos evolved into birds (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lbbDbLgdqpYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds+evolution+birds+grew+wings&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com) and that the birds didn't have wings to begin with but feathers but then grew them after millions of years.

Sounds unlogical? yes.

Let me quote this:

"Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story.

The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help."




idiot
















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1UKHimLZao



Lungfish (also known as salamanderfish[1]) are freshwater fish belonging to the Subclass Dipnoi. Lungfish are best-known for retaining characteristics primitive within the Osteichthyes, including the ability to breathe air, and structures primitive within Sarcopterygii, including the presence of lobed fins with a well-developed internal skeleton. Today, they live only in Africa, South America and Australia. While vicariance would suggest this represents an ancient distribution limited to the Mesozoic supercontinent Gondwana, the fossil record suggests that advanced lungfish had a widespread freshwater distribution and that the current distribution of modern lungfish species reflects extinction of many lineages following the breakup of Pangaea, Gondwana and Laurasia.

[rezznor]

lungfish not enough for you? here's a mudskipper

http://www.bountyfishing.com/blog/images/mudskipper.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurTiX4FDuQ


Mudskippers are members of the subfamily Oxudercinae (tribe Periophthalmini),[1] within the family Gobiidae (Gobies). They are completely amphibious fish, fish that can use their pectoral fins to walk on land.[2][3] Being amphibious, they are uniquely adapted to intertidal habitats, unlike most fish in such habitats which survive the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or in tidal pools.[4] Mudskippers are quite active when out of water, feeding and interacting with one another, for example to defend their territories. They are found in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions, including the Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic coast of Africa.

[Bladers]

Idiot


Seriously are evolution believers this dumb? There is no scientific evidence that links lungfish or any other species to evolution. They are a SEPERATE species. Just like the dolphin above that has a rear fin is a separate rare species. Evolutionist have brain washed people to think otherwise

There is no transistional link which is required for evolution to be proven. Charles darwin said it himself that evolution CANNOT be fact or be true unless transistional link are discovered for each species.

Why then are fools like "shlver" making statements like evolution is a fact? Because they are brainwashed idiots, that's why.

You say what has he been brainwashed with? everything I have posted against in this thread. If evolution is fact (though its not, even darwin admits that) then why the need of deception by scientists and evolutionists?

Let me fill you in:

"The 1.3m-long (4.3ft), 50kg (110lb) coelacanth is only the second ever to have been captured in Asia and has been described as a "significant find". An autopsy and genetic tests are now being carried out to determine more about the specimen. Coelacanths provide researchers with a window into the past; their fossil record dates back 350 million years."

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilpictures-wpd/Archaeopteryx/Archaeopteryx.jpg

The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since. The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.

The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page148.

This is simply another forgery by evolutionists in a desperate attempt to prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists can lie and commit fraud without blinking an eye. This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few.

Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth. Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and molding them into complex theories. They modify fossil evidence in an attempt to support their false theories. Cheat, cheat, cheat. Lie, lie, lie.

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution-platypus.gif

The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), with its duck bill and webbed feet, is a unique Australian animal. It and the two species of echidna are the only monotremes or egg-laying mammals to be found on earth. The marsupials (mammals with pouches, e.g. kangaroos) and eutherians (placental mammals that give birth to well-developed young, e.g. humans) both give birth to live young. The monotremes have lower body temperatures than other mammals and have legs which extend out, then vertically below them. These features, together with their egg-laying ability, are more like that of a lizard than a mammal. Platypus are readily identified by their streamlined body, webbed feet, broad tail, and characteristic muzzle or bill which is soft and pliable. The Platypus males have spurs on their hind feet that deliver a poisonous venom like a snake. A Platypus sting is powerful enough to make people sick and kill a dog. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

The Platypus of Australia has characteristics of many species but certainly is not the missing link to all of them. In fact, it is not a link to any of them. The Platypus has made a joke and a mockery of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and his unproven theory of natural selection.

[Bladers]

April 6. 2006 - Tiktaalik is the latest fossil gap evolutionary fraud. (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-04-05-fossil-gap_x.htm)

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution-tiktaalik.jpg

Scientists fraudulently claim a newly-discovered fish is the second bridge fossil gap between sea and land creatures. The scientists have apparently forgotten that the first fossil gap, Archaeopteryx, shown above was also a fraud. Tiktaalik therefore becomes fossil gap fraud number 2.

"Called "Tiktaalik" by scientists, the fish lived in shallow, swampy waters. Most remarkably, the creature, which was less than 3 feet long, had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs, and limb-like fins seen in the earliest land mammals." The claim that the stubby little fossil fins are "limb-like" is a real hoot. The fish doesn't even have fins as large as expected for its size. The scientists are claiming the fish walked around on the ground out of water and breathed air. This is pure make-believe speculation. No evidence exists that the fish is anything more than just another species.

The excitement about the Tiktaalik fossil is puzzling. Modern-day seals have fins and waddle around on the ground. Modern-day catfish have fins and walk around on the ground. Catfish can live out of water for a long time. Tiktaalik does not provide any support for evolution.

Test: If you believe the nonsense that Tiktaalik is a fossil gap species, you are brainwashed!

[Positive]

April 6. 2006 - Tiktaalik is the latest fossil gap evolutionary fraud. (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-04-05-fossil-gap_x.htm)

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution-tiktaalik.jpg

Scientists fraudulently claim a newly-discovered fish is the second bridge fossil gap between sea and land creatures. The scientists have apparently forgotten that the first fossil gap, Archaeopteryx, shown above was also a fraud. Tiktaalik therefore becomes fossil gap fraud number 2.

"Called "Tiktaalik" by scientists, the fish lived in shallow, swampy waters. Most remarkably, the creature, which was less than 3 feet long, had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs, and limb-like fins seen in the earliest land mammals." The claim that the stubby little fossil fins are "limb-like" is a real hoot. The fish doesn't even have fins as large as expected for its size. The scientists are claiming the fish walked around on the ground out of water and breathed air. This is pure make-believe speculation. No evidence exists that the fish is anything more than just another species.

The excitement about the Tiktaalik fossil is puzzling. Modern-day seals have fins and waddle around on the ground. Modern-day catfish have fins and walk around on the ground. Catfish can live out of water for a long time. Tiktaalik does not provide any support for evolution.

Test: If you believe the nonsense that Tiktaalik is a fossil gap species, you are brainwashed!

Do you have any reputable source claiming anything remotely close to what you're saying? You cite and article and quote it making it look like the article is proving your point, yet it does nothing of the sort.

[shlver]

What's your definition of macro evolution? Changes in phenotype? Incompatibility of mating? Speciation?
You gonna answer this?
Evolution has been observed, so the existence of evolution is a fact. The mechanism in which it works is a theory.
I'm a Christian btw and I had the same view as you but I realized evolution has no implications on Christianity.

[Bladers]

Do you have any reputable source claiming anything remotely close to what you're saying? You cite and article and quote it making it look like the article is proving your point, yet it does nothing of the sort.

Look what "evolutionist" essentially do is find an old fossil and say this guy evolved from this guy and this guy evolved into that guy.

There is absolutely no scientific proof behind.
It is a guessing game for them and they are toying with your mind.

[shlver]

Seriously are evolution believers this dumb? There is no scientific evidence that links lungfish or any other species to evolution. They are a SEPERATE species. Just like the dolphin above that has a rear fin is a separate rare species. Evolutionist have brain washed people to think otherwise

There is no transistional link which is required for evolution to be proven. Charles darwin said it himself that evolution CANNOT be fact or be true unless transistional link are discovered for each species.

Why then are fools like "shlver" making statements like evolution is a fact? Because they are brainwashed idiots, that's why.

You say what has he been brainwashed with? everything I have posted against in this thread. If evolution is fact (though its not, even darwin admits that) then why the need of deception by scientists and evolutionists?

Let me fill you in:

"The 1.3m-long (4.3ft), 50kg (110lb) coelacanth is only the second ever to have been captured in Asia and has been described as a "significant find". An autopsy and genetic tests are now being carried out to determine more about the specimen. Coelacanths provide researchers with a window into the past; their fossil record dates back 350 million years."

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilpictures-wpd/Archaeopteryx/Archaeopteryx.jpg

The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since. The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.

The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page148.

This is simply another forgery by evolutionists in a desperate attempt to prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists can lie and commit fraud without blinking an eye. This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few.

Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth. Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and molding them into complex theories. They modify fossil evidence in an attempt to support their false theories. Cheat, cheat, cheat. Lie, lie, lie.

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution-platypus.gif

The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), with its duck bill and webbed feet, is a unique Australian animal. It and the two species of echidna are the only monotremes or egg-laying mammals to be found on earth. The marsupials (mammals with pouches, e.g. kangaroos) and eutherians (placental mammals that give birth to well-developed young, e.g. humans) both give birth to live young. The monotremes have lower body temperatures than other mammals and have legs which extend out, then vertically below them. These features, together with their egg-laying ability, are more like that of a lizard than a mammal. Platypus are readily identified by their streamlined body, webbed feet, broad tail, and characteristic muzzle or bill which is soft and pliable. The Platypus males have spurs on their hind feet that deliver a poisonous venom like a snake. A Platypus sting is powerful enough to make people sick and kill a dog. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

The Platypus of Australia has characteristics of many species but certainly is not the missing link to all of them. In fact, it is not a link to any of them. The Platypus has made a joke and a mockery of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and his unproven theory of natural selection.
You're stuck on Darwin's theory but you haven't realized that evolutionary biology has come a long way since that time and many aspects of his work did not take into consideration subjects that didn't exist like modern genetics which is a key component to modern evolutionary theory.

[Bladers]

You gonna answer this?
Evolution has been observed, so the existence of evolution is a fact. The mechanism in which it works is a theory.


I must have been living under a rock. Darwin's theory of evolution has been observed? what are you waiting for? LINK ME UP, I want to be a believer.



I'm a Christian btw and I had the same view as you but I realized evolution has no implications on Christianity.

Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not you are an atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, vodoo, whose trying to do it to you.

It doesn't matter whether you believe zeus, or whether you pledge your allegiance to a broom.

Its doesn't matter if you're a weed-chopping, tobacco chewing, cocaine sniffing, pipe puffing niggah.

It doesn't make Evolution any less false.

Doesn't matter if you have degrees in law, Education, medical, business, engineering, biology, science...etc

You could have 32 degrees and still be frozen.

[shlver]

I must have been living under a rock. Darwin's theory of evolution has been observed? what are you waiting for? LINK ME UP, I want to be a believer.



Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not you are an atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, vodoo, whose trying to do it to you.

It doesn't matter whether you believe zeus, or whether you pledge your allegiance to a broom.

Its doesn't matter if you're a weed-chopping, tobacco chewing, cocaine sniffing, pipe puffing niggah.

It doesn't make Evolution any more less false.

Doesn't matter if you have degrees in law, Education, medical, business, engineering...

You could have 33 degrees and still be frozen.
Why are you still stuck on Darwin's theory in the year 2011?

[Bladers]

Why are you still stuck on Darwin's theory in the year 2011?

Because darwins theory is "the theory of evolution."

[shlver]

Because darwins theory is "the theory of evolution."
There are very few Darwinian fundamentalists so you're arguing against nobody. Darwinian evolution is not the only theory of evolution. Evolution with the definition of change over time is fact and the most general.

[ballup]

I think the following sums up this thread pretty nicely:
http://www.vgcats.com/super/images/110309.gif
http://www.vgcats.com/super/images/110317.gif

[Positive]

Look what "evolutionist" essentially do is find an old fossil and say this guy evolved from this guy and this guy evolved into that guy.

There is absolutely no scientific proof behind.
It is a guessing game for them and they are toying with your mind.

:roll: :roll:

Those ****in scientists man, good for nothing.

[Bladers]

There are very few Darwinian fundamentalists so you're arguing against nobody. Darwinian evolution is not the only theory of evolution. Evolution with the definition of change over time is fact and the most general.

If I had a penny for everytime you use the word "fact" next to the word "evolution", I would be even more richer.

The word "fact" shouldn't ever be in the vicinity of the word "evolution".
There should be a law instated in congress making it illegal to use the word "fact" in the same paragraph with the word "evolution."


Anyway, you keep alluding to these so-called non-existent facts which you have time and time again failed to produce.

Link up if you have any credible facts.

[Velocirap31]

This is still going on??

[Bladers]

I think the following sums up this thread pretty nicely:
http://www.vgcats.com/super/images/110309.gif
http://www.vgcats.com/super/images/110317.gif

What an idiotic cartoon dialog. The person who wrote it must be clueless.
If you can provide us with a demonstration of the theory of evolution just like that bulbasaur evolving into ivysaur right before our very eyes then every one would believe.

Show us a monkey turning into a human? Since thats essentially what that cartoon dialog was about.

[shlver]

If I had a penny for everytime you use the word "fact" next to the word "evolution", I would be even more richer.

The word "fact" shouldn't ever be in the vicinity of the word "evolution".
There should be a law instated in congress making it illegal to use the word "fact" in the same paragraph with the word "evolution."


Anyway, you keep alluding to these so-called non-existent facts which you have time and time again failed to produce.

Link up if you have any credible facts.
What's funny is you don't even know the subject you're arguing.

[Bladers]

What's funny is you don't even know the subject you're arguing.

What's absolutely amazing is for someone who has utilized the word "facts" (for only God knows how long) has yet to produce any shred of evidence.

[ballup]

What an idiotic cartoon dialog. The person who wrote it must be clueless.
If you can provide us with a demonstration of the theory of evolution just like that bulbasaur evolving into ivysaur right before our very eyes then every one would believe.

Show us a monkey turning into a human? Since thats essentially what that cartoon dialog was about.
I really hope you are just being a religious troll.

Otherwise, this is thread is hilarious.:oldlol:

[Stuckey]

http://wanderingamericantravelblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/hurr-durr-derp-face-i-dont-know-therefore-aliens.jpg

this show

[Bladers]

shlver, do you see how clueless your crew members are?
How many people have just posted one liners or pics in this thread?
And you tell me they ain't brainwashed idiots?

[shlver]

What's absolutely amazing is for someone who has utilized the word "facts" (for only God knows how long) has yet to produce any shred of evidence.
Cause you're discussing theories that don't even utilize modern genetics. :lol

[ballup]

shlver, do you see how clueless your crew members are?
How many people have just posted one liners or pics in this thread?
And you tell me they ain't brainwashed idiots?
I am offended. Our one liners have so much depth to them.

[Bladers]

Cause you're discussing theories that don't even utilize modern genetics. :lol

Is that really the case or are you too clueless?
Look at every religious thread and see whether you can spot a pattern.

See weather you can spot which camp the idiots with the one liners and gifs belong to.

You know something? When people have nothing to say, and are oblivious to the discussion at hand. They feel threatened and have to fight back with insult one liners and gif.

I don't blame them though, they are brain washed.
Like I said 99% of evolution believers are cheerleaders including you.

I'm quite disappointed that ISH is full of skirt chasers.

[shlver]

Is that really the case or are you too clueless?
Look at every religious thread and see whether you can spot a pattern.

See weather you can spot which camp the idiots with the one liners and gifs belong to.

You know something? When people have nothing to say, and are oblivious to the discussion at hand. They feel threatened and have to fight back with insult one liners and gif.

I don't blame them though, they are brain washed.
Like I said 99% of evolution believers are cheerleaders including you.

I'm quite disappointed that ISH is full of skirt chasers.
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you do not know fully the subject of evolution. You are stuck on Darwinian evolution.

[N0Skillz]

How can a virgin become pregnant?

Maybe she's a slut?

[Bladers]

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you do not know fully the subject of evolution. You are stuck on Darwinian evolution.

Thats not the point of the thread. I made this thread to prove that all of ISH evolution reppers are skirt chasing cross dressers. And I did.

People believe in evolution not because they researched it, and examined it and found it to be true. Because when you question them on it, or challenge their intelligence on the topic. They are clueless.

If you went on the streets and interviewed 20 people that believe in evolution, you would discover that 18 of them are oblivious to what evolution actually is. They just believe it because its a fad, an alternate to the belief in God(to them). If you tell them to explain it, they couldn't. And when you challenge them on the little they know, they will call you an idiot or refer you to someone else's book (which they probably never read) and tell you to read that. If you ask them to explain the book in their own words they look dumbfounded.

These are the people running rampant on this thread and on youtube and on almost every forum.

range from anywhere from 13-30
you find kids as little as 13, 14, 15 repping evolution and you tell me they ain't brain washed? What do they know about it NOTHING! So then why do they believe it? You tell me!

But like me help you out, they have been brain washed!

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
:oldlol: How the hell can you say the entire universe lacks any sign of life? Like you've seen it all or something.

[lakerstekkenn]

lol you guys looks like he is proving your false evolution wrong i will play but not yet not yet lol

[Kungfro]

Show us a monkey turning into a human? Since thats essentially what that cartoon dialog was about.

If you're talking about transitional fossils there's been hundreds of examples found.

[lakerstekkenn]

If you're talking about transitional fossils there's been hundreds of examples found.

there is not one found you lie post a link or quote please

[lakerstekkenn]

transitional fossils there is none not one

[lakerstekkenn]

so your theory is false you no why cause there should be millions its a theory not a law

[Bladers]

If you're talking about transitional fossils there's been hundreds of examples found.


Those fossils in no way link one species to another they are different species all to their own. I have explained that with the dolphin with rear fun, Archaeopteryx, Platypus, Tiktaalik... and every other so called findings.


None of them are transistional missing links.

[ballup]

Thats not the point of the thread. I made this thread to prove that all of ISH evolution reppers are skirt chasing cross dressers. And I did.

People believe in evolution not because they researched it, and examined it and found it to be true. Because when you question them on it, or challenge their intelligence on the topic. They are clueless.

If you went on the streets and interviewed 20 people that believe in evolution, you would discover that 18 of them are oblivious to what evolution actually is. They just believe it because its a fad, an alternate to the belief in God(to them). If you tell them to explain it, they couldn't. And when you challenge them on the little they know, they will call you an idiot or refer you to someone else's book (which they probably never read) and tell you to read that. If you ask them to explain the book in their own words they look dumbfounded.

These are the people running rampant on this thread and on youtube and on almost every forum.

range from anywhere from 13-30
you find kids as little as 13, 14, 15 repping evolution and you tell me they ain't brain washed? What do they know about it NOTHING! So then why do they believe it? You tell me!

But like me help you out, they have been brain washed!
And obviously you missed the point of my 2nd post in this thread. It was to mock the exchange of ideas within this thread.

I should have only posted page 51. That would have made my intention more clear.

[purplch0de]

C'mon guys, you really think god wasn't smart enough to create the central dogma during his prime?

[tpols]

People believe in evolution not because they researched it, and examined it and found it to be true. Because when you question them on it, or challenge their intelligence on the topic. They are clueless.

Did you research, examine, and find christianity to be true? No.. you read the books of past peoples and believed every word they said.

Except the difference is what the evolutionists wrote has been physically observed and your whole belief is based on something that cant be seen.. or heard.. or felt.. or sensed in any possible way.

[ace23]

Except the difference is what the evolutionists wrote has been physically observed and your whole belief is based on something that cant be seen.. or heard.. or felt.. or sensed in any possible way.
Well, this just is not true. It may be in your case, but not for me and many others.

[lakerstekkenn]

Those fossils in no way link one species to another they are different species all to their own. I have explained that with the dolphin with rear fun, Archaeopteryx, Platypus, Tiktaalik... and every other so called findings.


None of them are transistional missing links.

let theme answer bladers

[lakerstekkenn]

Christianity is not true

[lakerstekkenn]

but evolution is not true 2 both are wrong

[tpols]

Well, this just is not true. It may be in your case, but not for me and many others.
You dont think that evolution has been physically observed[maybe not the complete tree, but parts of it]? Im not talking about seeing the process right in front of us.. but seeing the before and after pieces and seeing a link.

[lakerstekkenn]

You dont think that evolution has been physically observed[maybe not the complete tree, but parts of it]? Im not talking about seeing the process right in front of us.. but seeing the before and after pieces and seeing a link.

first biology evolution is true but higher forms no prof none no links not one so things can adapt but what do you mean ?

[Velocirap31]

first biology evolution is true but higher forms no prof none no links not one so things can adapt but what do you mean ?

This might not be your area of expertise, sir. :facepalm

[lakerstekkenn]

you mean a fish can grow legs and walk right what came first lungs or legs but you no fish will die in the sun so what came first lungs legs skin to fight the sun what did they hunt did they eat meat veg fish eat meat no veg did they run walk ? its easy to say fish walked out to land but with no lungs they die .

[lakerstekkenn]

This might not be your area of expertise, sir. :facepalm
how school me please

[TennesseeFan]

I think we can all agree, religion/God debates aside, that evolution is no longer a theory; more like solidified fact.


That's the biggest load of horse shit I've seen today

...

[ace23]

You dont think that evolution has been physically observed?
I was referring to your belief that Christianity has no basis that we can observe or feel.

I'm not here to try to convert you, but I strongly disagree with that bit as I have witnessed God's works, and felt his power many a time in my 18 years. (Yes, I know this sounds cliche.)

Parallels have been drawn between Christianity and many other religions; I don't believe those to be mere coincidences.

I respect your opinion, though.

[purplch0de]

you mean a fish can grow legs and walk right what came first lungs or legs but you no fish will die in the sun so what came first lungs legs skin to fight the sun what did they hunt did they eat meat veg fish eat meat no veg did they run walk ? its easy to say fish walked out to land but with no lungs they die .

There are animals that still exist that fill up the transition from pure underwater animal such as a fish, to amphibians to eventually land-restricted. There are fish with lungs. Time is not something that can easily be pin pointed, it's always a range. If you compare the similarities in DNA to morphology between species, you will find how truly remarkable evolution is. Very small genotype changes can have drastic changes in phenotype.

[lakerstekkenn]

There are animals that still exist that fill up the transition from pure underwater animal such as a fish, to amphibians to eventually land-restricted. There are fish with lungs. Time is not something that can easily be pin pointed, it's always a range.

not true that is a lie all spiders are the same all fish are the same sharks never changed turtle the same fly's are the same i could show you every animal with no change

[lakerstekkenn]

even plants

[purplch0de]

not true that is a lie all spiders are the same all fish are the same sharks never changed turtle the same fly's are the same i could show you every animal with no change

:facepalm

It's not simply phenotype that distinguish sharks, turtles etc. from each other...

[lakerstekkenn]

There are animals that still exist that fill up the transition from pure underwater animal such as a fish, to amphibians to eventually land-restricted. There are fish with lungs. Time is not something that can easily be pin pointed, it's always a range. If you compare the similarities in DNA to morphology between species, you will find how truly remarkable evolution is. Very small genotype changes can have drastic changes in phenotype.

well if you please show me one sir

[lakerstekkenn]

:facepalm

It's not simply phenotype that distinguish sharks, turtles etc. from each other...

we have the fossils

[lakerstekkenn]

or did you study ?

[tpols]

I was referring to your belief that Christianity has no basis that we can observe or feel.

I'm not here to try to convert you, but I strongly disagree with that bit as I have witnessed God's works, and felt his power many a time in my 18 years. (Yes, I know this sounds cliche.)

Parallels have been drawn between Christianity and many other religions; I don't believe those to be mere coincidences.

I respect your opinion, though.
Thats fine if you feel that way. I know there are miracles and wierd occurences that happen all the time that seem inspired by or connected to a higher being like God. I just have my own explanations for a lot of those but I dont want to get into explaining my views now.

[purplch0de]

well if you please show me one sir


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/lungfish1.jpg

I'm not going to waste my time with you, just look at a phylogenetic tree. You will be able to see where certain traits are lost and where others are gained.

[lakerstekkenn]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/lungfish1.jpg

I'm not going to waste my time with you, just look at a phylogenetic tree. You will be able to see where certain traits are lost and where others are gained.

please provide a trains fossil to prove your case from this fish ill wait

[lakerstekkenn]

you show me a creation and say its a link prove it please

[purplch0de]

please provide a trains fossil to prove your case from this fish ill wait

Show me your credentials that way I know my time is worthy. Give me your .edu email address to confirm you're not some high school retard that you come off as.

I do not need to prove my case as there is no controversy whether or not evolution exist unless it's with religious ****s. I'm assuming you know how phylogenetic trees are created right? It's not based simply off of phenotype as i mentioned.

[lakerstekkenn]

so it should be easy to show mutant forms from this

[purplch0de]

so it should be easy to show mutant forms from this

Everyone is a mutant... there is no direct 100% similarity between anyone/anything. Do you want to keep failing?

[lakerstekkenn]

Show me your credentials that way I know my time is worthy. Give me your .edu email address to confirm you're not some high school retard that you come off as.
kid im 42 years old im no kid the prof is on you you come on here talking shiit but you cant prove a thing i no all about you what you believe and teach what does age have to do what anything all i ask is for prof that's it

[lakerstekkenn]

Everyone is a mutant... there is no direct 100% similarity between anyone/anything. Do you want to keep failing?

no prof is on you not me you failed not me nice try

[purplch0de]

kid im 42 years old im no kid the prof is on you you come on here talking shiit but you cant prove a thing i no all about you what you believe and teach what does age have to do what anything all i ask is for prof that's it

know =/= no.

I already gave you proof, i guess you need to get your reading glasses. Let me ask you, do you know how phylogenetic trees are created?

[lakerstekkenn]

please all i ask is one trains form one mutant just one pics don't prove nothing i need facts fossils

[purplch0de]

please all i ask is one trains form one mutant just one pics don't prove nothing i need facts fossils

Fossils are facts? Sorry, but genetic makeup is what allows us to distinguish species.

[lakerstekkenn]

know =/= no.

I already gave you proof, i guess you need to get your reading glasses. Let me ask you, do you know how phylogenetic trees are created?

what tree lol theirs no tree its fake

[lakerstekkenn]

Fossils are facts? Sorry, but genetic makeup is what allows us to distinguish species.

show me one mutant im still waiting this is not a movie like X men :no:

[purplch0de]

what tree lol theirs no tree its fake

So first you say not tree exists, then it does but it's not supported by anything? I'm done with this "42 year old" guy that just happens to type like a high school moron. So like i said earlier, i will only continue wasting my time when you provide me with credentials showing that you are worthy of my time. Until then, i will continue to assume you're what i mentioned and ignore you.

And just to entertain others, how exactly is this tree fake? You made the statement calling fake, provide reasoning.

https://www.msu.edu/course/isb/202/ebertmay/images/Vert%20Tree%20Redrawn.jpg

[lakerstekkenn]

So first you say not tree exists, then it does but it's not supported by anything? I'm done with this "42 year old" guy that just happens to type like a high school moron. So like i said earlier, i will only continue wasting my time when you provide me with credentials showing that you are worthy of my time. Until then, i will continue to assume you're what i mentioned and ignore you.

And just to entertain others, how exactly is this tree fake? You made the statement calling fake, provide reasoning.

https://www.msu.edu/course/isb/202/ebertmay/images/Vert%20Tree%20Redrawn.jpg


first new study says dinosaurs came from birds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/297-7d9-a-1f

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.php

3 links that challenge your so called tree i told you it was fake evolution is a theory not a fact nice try

[lakerstekkenn]

check mate your move :no:

[lakerstekkenn]

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs"...

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." (i)

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:

"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement." (ii)

This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.

[lakerstekkenn]

your kung fu is not strong :no:

[purplch0de]

first new study says dinosaurs came from birds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/297-7d9-a-1f

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.php

3 links that challenge your so called tree i told you it was fake evolution is a theory not a fact nice try

You obviously have no background in science. Nothing is fact in science, and phylums have never been said to be concrete, in smaller/specific areas of the tree, there is controversy (like the one you posted). There have always been scientists that argue certain species are closer related. But even then, look at the tree i posted. How exactly did any of those links prove it wrong? So again, i ask you to prove that tree false...

And by the way, all of those articles argued based off morphology. Second, none of them argue evolution does not exist. Find a primary article on that.

[purplch0de]

You realize your links helped my argument right? They proved that tree is correct...

[lakerstekkenn]

You obviously have no background in science. Nothing is fact in science, and phylums have never been said to be concrete, in smaller/specific areas of the tree, there is controversy (like the one you posted). There have always been scientists that argue certain species are closer related. But even then, look at the tree i posted. How exactly did any of those links prove it wrong? So again, i ask you to prove that tree false...

And by the way, all of those articles argued based off morphology. Second, none of them argue evolution does not exist. Find a primary article on that.

so you prove me right evolution is a theory not a fact

next one so your science is flawed tree is fake like i said it changes everyday

next how can a cold blooded change to warm blooded ill wait use the tree of life:confusedshrug:

[lakerstekkenn]

You realize your links helped my argument right? They proved that tree is correct...

nope your wrong birds came first so your tree is a fake next we will find out another lie from your tree its a matter of time

[purplch0de]

so you prove me right evolution is a theory not a fact

next one so your science is flawed tree is fake like i said it changes everyday

next how can a cold blooded change to warm blooded ill wait use the tree of life:confusedshrug:

No, the tree i posted does not change... There are enough FACTS to prove that tree just about concrete. And like i said earlier, nothing is fact, NOTHING. You can't argue the sun exists because there is a small percentage that it wont when you say it.

It is a theory based off of facts as a member here said. People like you argue words, not thesis. Poor argument bud. How about arguing the thesis? What on the tree that i posted is false? You said birds and dinosaurs are closely related, isn't that what it shows? Why are you proving me right? I thought i and the tree was wrong/false?

[purplch0de]

nope your wrong birds came first so your tree is a fake next we will find out another lie from your tree its a matter of time

That tree isn't saying anything in terms of what came first between birds and dinosaurs... where do you see it putting dinosaurs before birds or vice versa? Again, prove that tree wrong (for the fifth time)

[lakerstekkenn]

No, the tree i posted does not change... There are enough FACTS to prove that tree just about concrete. And like i said earlier, nothing is fact, NOTHING. You can't argue the sun exists because there is a small percentage that it wont when you say it.

It is a theory based off of facts as a member here said. People like you argue words, not thesis. Poor argument bud. How about arguing the thesis? What on the tree that i posted is false? You said birds and dinosaurs are closely related, isn't that what it shows? Why are you proving me right? I thought i and the tree was wrong/false?

they are not one is cold blooded one is not not related unless you have a trains form to prove it i ask again how can a cold blooded turn into a warm blooded ill wait:confusedshrug:

[lakerstekkenn]

Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48

[purplch0de]

they are not one is cold blooded one is not not related unless you have a trains form to prove it i ask again how can a cold blooded turn into a warm blooded ill wait:confusedshrug:

what is this trains form you keep saying?

Both birds and dinosaurs are for the most part warm blooded... not sure what you're talking about

[Bladers]

You dont think that evolution has been physically observed[maybe not the complete tree, but parts of it]? Im not talking about seeing the process right in front of us.. but seeing the before and after pieces and seeing a link.


Current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, recently said:

". . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed."

[purplch0de]

[QUOTE=lakerstekkenn]Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48

[lakerstekkenn]

what is this trains form you keep saying?

Both birds and dinosaurs are for the most part warm blooded... not sure what you're talking about

not true dinos are not warm blooded they mat have been not a fact nice try

[purplch0de]

You can't argue that birds and dinosaurs cannot be related because one is cold blooded and the other is warm blooded when we don't know. Just not enough facts. Why dont we talk about modern animals, that way we know all of the facts.

Prove me wrong on that tree now.

[lakerstekkenn]

So now you're plagiarizing articles/someones thought and work?

what does it matter you use a book same thing

[Bladers]

You can't argue that birds and dinosaurs cannot be related because one is cold blooded and the other is warm blooded when we don't know. Just not enough facts. Why dont we talk about modern animals, that way we know all of the facts.

Prove me wrong on that tree now.

Should I wait till his done before I destroy you? :D

[purplch0de]

Should I wait till his done before I destroy you? :D

start, i dont mind debates win or lose.

[DaHeezy]

So now you're plagiarizing articles/someones thought and work?

What does that matter? He's not claiming it's his work. You asked for an answer based on thesis and he provided it. He does what you request and you insult him for that?

[lakerstekkenn]

You can't argue that birds and dinosaurs cannot be related because one is cold blooded and the other is warm blooded when we don't know. Just not enough facts. Why dont we talk about modern animals, that way we know all of the facts.

Prove me wrong on that tree now.
ok np

Cambrian Explosion

There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.

[lakerstekkenn]

i told you your kung fu is not strong :no:

[purplch0de]

[QUOTE=lakerstekkenn]ok np

Cambrian Explosion

There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.

[lakerstekkenn]

like you dont use books when you study nice try

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism, explains the avian lung in this way:

This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi

[purplch0de]

What does that matter? He's not claiming it's his work. You asked for an answer based on thesis and he provided it. He does what you request and you insult him for that?

No i asked him repeatedly to prove the tree i posted is false. He has yet to do that...

[purplch0de]

like you dont use books when you study nice try

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism, explains the avian lung in this way:

This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi… The structure of the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details it is identical in birds. (6)

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung:

…In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. (7)


I don't quote, i paraphrase and offer a citation (Have you ever written a primary article?). Have you ever seen quotations in PNAS, Cell, Nature published primary research?

[lakerstekkenn]

No i asked him repeatedly to prove the tree i posted is false. He has yet to do that...
i proved your tree is a guess did birds come first we don't no if birds cam first so your tree is toast nice

[lakerstekkenn]

I don't quote, i paraphrase and offer a citation (Have you ever written a primary article?). Have you ever seen quotations in PNAS, Cell, Nature published primary research?

does it matter i ask for your prof not one of you can prove it not one ill wait

[purplch0de]

does it matter i ask for your prof not one of you can prove it not one ill wait

what is a prof? and what is a trains fossil?

[purplch0de]

i proved your tree is a guess did birds come first we don't no if birds cam first so your tree is toast nice

Guess is not the same as a theory... and it's a valid one as the one is posted is concrete.

[lakerstekkenn]

all i ask is for prof show me one prof

[lakerstekkenn]

what is a prof? and what is a trains fossil?

now your playing stupid i no why i will spell it out
print print

Transitional forms

[lakerstekkenn]

you get it now ? show me one

[lakerstekkenn]

i need just one that cant be hard

[purplch0de]

you get it now ? show me one

After you prove to me how the tree i posted if false. I asked that 3-4 pages ago, i believe your statement should be defended before i asked you question that came later. And i'm not even sure what you're asking. People generally ask specific questions, not for something as ambiguous as "prof". "prof" of what?

[lakerstekkenn]

see this is the proof people play stupid cause they have no answer Allah is god and Jesus is his prophet i baited him hes to worried about my spelling then to show proof nice try:no:

[purplch0de]

Proof of what i ask again... and don't mention that idiot allah in here. HE couldn't defuse the bombs that hit is mosque even if he could rewalk this world.

[lakerstekkenn]

After you prove to me how the tree i posted if false. I asked that 3-4 pages ago, i believe your statement should be defended before i asked you question that came later. And i'm not even sure what you're asking. People generally ask specific questions, not for something as ambiguous as "prof". "prof" of what?

i proved it what was first birds or dinos so your tee is fake still playing games i no why you have not one

Transitional forms

[purplch0de]

What was first birds or dinosaurs? How the hell am i suppose to answer that? That's not even a logical question to ask someone as it's still controversial. And there is no proving, only arguing each thesis.

Where on that tree does it say dinosaurs came before birds or vice versa? Why is it fake?

Dude, your posts no longer make any sense, spend a little more time typing them rather then copying and pasting other peoples arguments.

[purplch0de]

i proved it what was first birds or dinos so your tee is fake still playing games i no why you have not one

Transitional forms
:wtf: does this mean... translation please?

[lakerstekkenn]

Proof of what i ask again... and don't mention that idiot allah in here. HE couldn't defuse the bombs that hit is mosque even if he could rewalk this world.

Allah is God same name in Hebrew and Aramaic jesus called God Allah

like when you killed the Indians for there land or you had a bbq when a black man was burnt to death or when you bashed babies heads on rocks your history i no all about you

you had a dam party when you burnt blacks alive so don't tell me about shiit you coward

[lakerstekkenn]

What was first birds or dinosaurs? How the hell am i suppose to answer that? That's not even a logical question to ask someone as it's still controversial. And there is no proving, only arguing each thesis.

Where on that tree does it say dinosaurs came before birds or vice versa? Why is it fake?

Dude, your posts no longer make any sense, spend a little more time typing them rather then copying and pasting other peoples arguments.
but you said you can prove your case for evolution you dont even no if birds are dinos its fake not a fact

[purplch0de]

but you said you can prove your case for evolution you dont even no if birds are dinos its fake not a fact

Dinosaurs do not exist, which is why it's difficult to tell which came first. For someone whose world evolves around "god", prove he/she exists.

[lakerstekkenn]

Dinosaurs do not exist, which is why it's difficult to tell which came first. For someone whose world evolves around "god", prove he/she exists.
you cant even answer a simple q about

Transitional forms

now you want me to prove god and you cant even prove your case its funny
not woman

energy cant die and has no end or cant be created but God energy is different then we know there are so many types of energy God is the pure thinking energy not a man hope that answers your Q

[lakerstekkenn]

Oh so you hare a religious ****... damn you're worse off than i thought. How excited are you about your virgins? That religion is not sexist at all... beyond the bible.


please tell me about the virgins from the quran ill wait another lie go study please :no:

[lakerstekkenn]

Its not a simple question, and your argument is absurd.

You: Evolution cant explain what came first, bird or dinosaur so therefore the thesis is false

weak

Meanwhile you're swollowing allahs juices after he ****s you in the ass... are those juices the energy you speak of?

first off thats your teachers not mine birds are created like dinos so i have no problem its you you need to prove your case not me nice try

[purplch0de]

please tell me about the virgins from the quran ill wait another lie go study please :no:
No thanks, i enjoy reading non-fiction text.

[lakerstekkenn]

you tell me dinos came from birds or birds came from dinos

i say they where created from God

now you need to prove your case

[lakerstekkenn]

No thanks, i enjoy reading non-fiction text.

run like a coward when you get challenged you run go study :no:

[lakerstekkenn]

your kung fu is not strong :no:

[lakerstekkenn]

you see brothers Islam is the truth not a man can debate you not one they run and hide like cowards Allah is God and there is no God but Allah

[lakerstekkenn]

Basit - Hussari - Minshawi -

Qul jaa alhaqqu wama yubdio albatilu wama yuAAeedu

Topics discussed in this Verse:
[Truth versus falsehood]

# 34:49 (Asad) Say:

[lakerstekkenn]

allah speaks the truth

like i said i no all about you

all religions all

you challenge Allah you lose

all religions will lose

all :no:

[lakerstekkenn]

there is not a man born that can debate you not one ill wait but i will bet a dolor this thread will be closed in a day you watch :pimp:

[N0Skillz]

I have a question Bladers


How did Adam and Eve live to be 700?

[lakerstekkenn]

I have a question Bladers


How did Adam and Eve live to be 700?

ask me not bladers don't no what hes talking about with respect

ask me

[N0Skillz]

ask me not bladers don't no what hes talking about with respect

ask me


ok answer

[lakerstekkenn]

ok answer
they didn't live 700 years

its a lie

[lakerstekkenn]

earth is billions of years old not 600 years old another lie

[Jackass18]

now your playing stupid i no why i will spell it out
print print

Transitional forms

Is English your native language? Why in the hell do you make so many posts when you can fit all that crap into 1 post? Why do you type like a 12 year old? You see, I put that all in 1 post instead of 3 separate posts...


energy cant die and has no end or cant be created but God energy is different then we know there are so many types of energy God is the pure thinking energy not a man hope that answers your Q

prof?

[purplch0de]

Is English your native language? Why in the hell do you make so many posts when you can fit all that crap into 1 post? Why do you type like a 12 year old? You see, I put that all in 1 post instead of 3 separate posts...



prof?
:roll:

[vinsane01]

Regardless of whether or not the OP is trolling or not, I like to refute the so called scientific facts posted by the OP that supposedly disproves evolution, some of which arent even concerned with evolution (6, 8, 9 and 10). But then i remember reading some article which says that in one poll in 1999, 18% of americans and 19% of the brits are modern day geocentrics. It's safe to say that a great deal of people belonging to that percentage are christian fundamentalists. So i figure what's the use? (I hope that number has gone down significantly by now.)

The internet can be used to acquire various amounts of knowledge from different scientific fields. And we have it at our disposal. Your just one click away from knowing what you want to know. Proper use of logic, an open mind and removal of immediate bias is sorely required though.

[RaininThrees]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/creationists_la_la_la.png

[RaininThrees]

Those fossils in no way link one species to another they are different species all to their own. I have explained that with the dolphin with rear fun, Archaeopteryx, Platypus, Tiktaalik... and every other so called findings.


None of them are transistional missing links.

Again, the idea of a "missing link" is the easiest (and most wrong) argument against evolution, simply because the person arguing can never be wrong about it. They'll never be satisfied with an answer. From my post earlier:


Let's say Species "A" evolved into Species "C"

A ----------------- > C

The above argument supposes that there MUST be a Species "B" to get from "A" to "C"

"A" ------> "B " -------> "C"

This creates 2 NEW gaps (Species "AB" and Species "BC") that must be found to satisfy the argument above.

"A" ----> "AB" ----> "B" ----> "BC" ----> "C"

There are now 4 gaps. And it goes on, ad infinitum.

It's an evolutionary version of one of Zeno's Paradoxes.

[808s&kobesteaks]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/creationists_la_la_la.png

-2011
-not believing in God

i seriously hope you guys dont do this
http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n524/macazoe010/timmy.jpg

[sawyersauce]

Again, the idea of a "missing link" is the easiest (and most wrong) argument against evolution, simply because the person arguing can never be wrong about it. They'll never be satisfied with an answer. From my post earlier:


Let's say Species "A" evolved into Species "C"

A ----------------- > C

The above argument supposes that there MUST be a Species "B" to get from "A" to "C"

"A" ------> "B " -------> "C"

This creates 2 NEW gaps (Species "AB" and Species "BC") that must be found to satisfy the argument above.

"A" ----> "AB" ----> "B" ----> "BC" ----> "C"

There are now 4 gaps. And it goes on, ad infinitum.

It's an evolutionary version of one of Zeno's Paradoxes.

Yeah. Spot on.
I

[Droid101]

Show us a monkey turning into a human? Since thats essentially what that cartoon dialog was about.
Does anyone understand what "common ancestor" even means?

Talking to these zealots is exhausting.

[bigdog13]

People in those days had a longer life span.


What is illogical about that? You have a flood and a large ship? What am I missing?


These are the 2 best quotes. People lived longer in those days, when it is scientifically proven that lifespans have been increasing over time due to medicine, quality of food etc.


There are 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals; all of which live in different climates, tempurature and eat different things, all co-mingling on a boat in a time when there was no refrigeration, or electric heat.

What am I missing?

[Take Your Lumps]

There are 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals; all of which live in different climates, tempurature and eat different things, all co-mingling on a boat in a time when there was no refrigeration, or electric heat.

http://i.imgur.com/vWVDf.jpg

[bigdog13]

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.


As-Salamu Alaykum, you know for a fact that the Theropod dinosaurs have vertebrae pneumatized in a way that is very similar to modern birds & that they evolved during the Mesozoic Era. Comeon lakerterkkenn.

how is the fast coming along?

[JtotheIzzo]

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

http://www.biblelife.org/tweety.gif

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.


sad, I feel sorry for you

[lilbill]

The fact that people like Bladers exist makes me seriously doubt human evolution.

[Bladers]

The ignorance of Evolution believers in this thread is appalling.
This is addressed to every evolution believer here, including you "purplch0de."

There is no proof or evidence that Evolution is happening NOW

No one has ever seen evolution take place, if it were real as evolutionist claim, then it would be happening as we speak and there would be millions of transistional form we could observe. But we do not, what we have instead are various distinct types of plants and animal. There are varieties of dogs and cats.
But there are not cags or dots. These different varities in animals like dogs are called microevolution (small downward or horz changes). Nothing in the vertical scale.

Evolutionists have failed to produce new species

For a long time evolutionist have tried forcefully to produce a new species by experimenting on fire fly by injecting mutational changes in an attempt to introduce a new and better species, but all those attempts have failed.

No new species have ever been developed.

Evolutionists admit they have no evidence whatsoever, therefore not science

Many claim evolution is a fact, yet there are no evidence that exist. True scientific methods have required experimental observation and replication as I have stated before. Evolution does not have neither. Therefore its not true science.

Infact one of the leading evolutionary scientist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, recently said "...it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed."


Even Ernst Mayr, one of the long standing evolutionists, professor of biology at Harvard admitted that evolution is "historical science" in which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"

They are now admitting that you couldn't ever see evolution taking place.

Evolution is only not true science, but its neither historical science either

Evolutionists claim that the proof for evolution lies in the fossil recorded of the past and state that the reason we can't see evolution is because it happens so slow.

Now evolutionist no long claim the proof for evolution lies in the fossil records of the past, they have moved on.

But we know for a fact that there are millions of fossil records and none of them include a single transistional form with a trans structure in the process of evolving.

Everything about evolution include the evolution of life and non life, sea and land creatures are all missing intermediates, there is no link.

NOT only are Evolution believers cluess, Evolution Scientists are clueless aswell!

Leslie Orgel, a leading researcher in the field of the origin of life said :

"...one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

But being an evolutionist, he is stuck to his guns that the couldn't be any different way life could come about but naturally.

He said: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best."

In other words: "There isn't any known way in which life could have arose naturalistic-ally."

Even one of the most anti-creationist, Niles Eldredge, a paleontologist said there was little or even no evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record.

[JtotheIzzo]

There is no proof or evidence that Evolution is happening NOW

No one has ever seen evolution take place, if it were real as evolutionist claim, then it would be happening as we speak and there would be millions of transistional form we could observe. But we do not, what we have instead are various distinct types of plants and animal. There are varieties of dogs and cats.
But there are not cags or dots. These different varities in animals like dogs are called microevolution (small downward or horz changes). Nothing in the vertical scale.


viruses are constantly evolving to combat new drugs and antibiotics.

this knowledge is taught in science 101, you are obviously very biased to ignore these hard facts, I'd think you were a complete retard, but you can string a sentence together so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just call you a moron, a victim of the dumbing down of society.

pity

[bagelred]

The ignorance of Evolution believers in this thread is appalling.
This is addressed to every evolution believer here, including you "purplch0de."

There is no proof or evidence that Evolution is happening NOW

No one has ever seen evolution take place, if it were real as evolutionist claim, then it would be happening as we speak and there would be millions of transistional form we could observe. But we do not, what we have instead are various distinct types of plants and animal. There are varieties of dogs and cats.
But there are not cags or dots. These different varities in animals like dogs are called microevolution (small downward or horz changes). Nothing in the vertical scale.

Evolutionists have failed to produce new species

For a long time evolutionist have tried preposively to produce a new species by experimenting on fire fly by injecting mutational changes in an attempt to introduce a new and better species, but all those attempts have failed.

No new species have ever been developed.

Evolutionists admit they have no evidence whatsoever, therefore not science

Many claim evolution is a fact, yet there are no evidence that exist. True scientific methods have required experimental observation and replication as I have stated before. Evolution does not have neither. Therefore its not true science.

Infact one of the leading evolutionary scientist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, recently said "...it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed."


Even Ernst Mayr, one of the long standing evolutionists, professor of biology at Harvard attempted that evolution is "historical science" in which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"

They are now admitting that you couldn't ever see evolution taking place.

Evolution is only not true science, but its neither historical science either

Evolutionists claim that the proof for evolution lies in the fossil recorded of the past and state that the reason we can't see evolution is because it happens so slow.

Now evolutionist no long claim the proof for evolution lies in the fossil records of the past, they have moved on.

But we know for a fact that there are millions of fossil records and none of them include a single transistional form with a trans structure in the process of evolving.

Everything about evolution include the evolution of life and non life, sea and land creatures are all missing intermediates, there is no link.

NOT only are Evolution believers cluess, Evolution Scientists are clueless aswell!

Leslie Orgel, a leading researcher in the field of the origin of life said :

"...one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

But being an evolutionist, he is stuck to his guns that the couldn't be any different way life could come about but naturally.

He said: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best."

In other words: "There isn't any known way in which life could have arose naturalistic-ally."

Even one of the most anti-creationist, Niles Eldredge, a paleontologist said there was little or even no evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record.

"Likes I says b 4, Dat hears even mor proofs evuloochion be rong. lettuce danz."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgyg_5FF_0

http://marchhare.bc.ca/content/images/hillbilly1.jpg

[bigdog13]

The ignorance of Evolution believers in this thread is appalling.
This is addressed to every evolution believer here, including you "purplch0de."

There is no proof or evidence that Evolution is happening NOW

No one has ever seen evolution take place.


You have never seen god. therefore, under your own arguement and thesis, god does not exist. At least you can admit it Bladers.

[Hazard]

Does it really matter that much to you that people have different beliefs than you? I can see you becoming one of those bible doomsayers on the street corner trying to brainwash naive college students. Get a damn hobby or something, nobody cares what you have to say.

[Bladers]

So how do the evolutional trees come about that "purplch0de" been blabbling about?


When these organism did not change?

Paleoanthropologists have been searching hundreds of years for the trans form of humans and all they have at their disposal right now are 2,000 fossil records of our so called "ancestors."

They sort jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, with the molecular evidence from living species, and pierce together a arbitrary line of humans ranging from 5 to 8 million years ago to the time where humans and chimps shared a common ancestor.

So basically Anthropologists took their fragments of fossils, with DNA and other molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to conjure up a evolutionary scenario that would stick.

Yet the genetic evidence they use actually contradicts their fossil evidence.

Roger Lewin is a British anthropologist and scientist and said that "The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."

So you see there is not one single shred of real scientific evidence that evolution in this scale (vertical/macro) has ever took place or taking place or will ever take place for that matter.

The evolutionary tree is an arbiritary system that is based on faith in naturalism.

Since there no direct and hard Evidence, where do Evolutionist turn to?

Remember when Casey was not convicted of murder because there wasn't any direct evidence? Now the evolutionist turn to circumstantial evidence and proclaim it as "proof". Even then there were more circumstantial evidence in Casey's case than what resides in the Evolution court.

These claims are that similarities in DNA or any other biochemical components of an organisms is proof that evolution is a scientific fact. Some of those ridiculous claims that have been argued by evolutionist is that that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since all organisms inhabits it. Another is that because there are similarity in DNA structures in two different organisms, it proves common evolutionary ancestry.

None of these are true or valid.
So now evolutionist as slver can testify to, have stopped proclaiming fossil records as their certificate for factualizing evolution because of the numerous gaps where there should be transition. Once the fossil ship was sinking, the rats jumped from one ship into another. Now they're proclaiming DNA and other genetic as they proof.

That's why you have rats like "slver" running around.

Though their so called "new proof" is contradictory to the fossil records.

So what is the real Question?

The real question is, are there is any observable evidence that evolution is happening now or ever in the past. But as we have heard from many evolutionists, they acknowledge that this type of "real scientific evidence for evolution" does not exist.

[bigdog13]

I see how you skirted my comment. Too afraid to respond to that????

You are a good reseacher, and a good diciple of Glenn Beck. People can write their opinions anywhere. If you only rely on websites and books that have the incorrect bias then yes you are going to quote a bunch of bull$hit. Are you like Glenn Beck, who thinks thunder is god bowling, rain is his tears and snow is god's dandruff problem?

[CLE[216]]

Hey Bladers, do you believe that natural selection exists?

[TheGreatBlaze]

How did Adam and Eve live to be 700?
It does mention in Genesis fwiw

"Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.""

[Bladers]

Does it really matter that much to you that people have different beliefs than you? I can see you becoming one of those bible doomsayers on the street corner trying to brainwash naive college students. Get a damn hobby or something, nobody cares what you have to say.

Doesn't it matters that so-called evolutionary scietists who are running the show have this mindset. I have said it all along and each time I said it, people said it wasn't so. Well lets hear it from the horses mouths. These are the leaders and pioneers of evolution. This are the people that push it. They already have their mind made up and working only towards it.

This is a professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University, he said:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

Ernst Mayr said that "Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

I have always said and you can quote me on this and google on ISH and you will find it. I have always said that "Science is not looking to explain the universe, but to explain the universe WITHOUT God!"

Cosmologetics have themselves stated:

(Note the underlined)

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism....we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."


An evolutionary scientist Richard Lewontin of Harvard said:

"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."

Here is a physics speaking the truth:

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."

[Hazard]

You try hard to discredit science because you know the bible has absolutely no credibility. Yes, there is a chance an intelligent being created this design, however believing in something is a backwards way of working towards the truth. I can even argue that this type of thinking is the reason the state of this country and planet as a whole is as ****ed up as it is.

[Bladers]

You try hard to discredit science because you know the bible has absolutely no credibility. Yes, there is a chance an intelligent being created this design, however believing in something is a backwards way of working towards the truth. I can even argue that this type of thinking is the reason the state of this country and planet as a whole is as ****ed up as it is.

Well what? I'm I missing something? it takes more faith to believe in something like evolution rather than something like intelligent design.

Again we are not talking about religion here.

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University)

The leading evolutionist, the primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism, Julian Huxley, in the 20th centery called evolution a "religion without revelation." He said in his book that "Evolution is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth." and that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern." Finally he said "The God hypothesis is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought. We must construct something to take its place."

Its amazing the amount of people that has been brain washed to think that everything you read that begins with "Scientists say..." Is absolutely and undenialably the truth. And the public is spoon fed that scientists are not biased, that they are objective people who don't have set goals. When its quite clear they do.

They said it themselves if evidence points to an intelligent designer, they will reject it. Because thats not what they are trying to accomplish.

[Hazard]

I'm almost convinced you have no idea how the scientific method works. And yes, I agree religion needs to be replaced and completely abolished, because it makes people fearful, ignorant, naive and stupid. It stunts the growth of the human race.

[Positive]

Well what? I'm I missing something? it takes more faith to believe in something like evolution rather than something like intelligent design.

so who created the creator, the secondary creator? your argument is way more baseless