A Matter of Faith: New movie by Answers in Genesis

@pleasethink

You never posted any experimental data to support your position. That's all we need to know about your position. There's no evidence, therefore, there's no proof.

When you have evidence, evidence that is recognized by any legitimate scientist as real evidence, then you can argue your case.

As for not understanding evolution, I think it is you who needs to go back to the drawing board. And while you're at it, learn some real science - not the canned packages they're feeding you at Answers in Genesis which require no critical thinking.

a reply to: pleasethink

What is it to you exactly how I write the word G-d?

Just wondering, as I said.
Is it somehow sealing one's fate as hell-bound if they write out the proper word?

POST REMOVED BY STAFF.

I'm fully grown.
Civilized society recognizes that ancient mythology and anthologies of them are only that - mythology/anthologies of myths. Ancient, timeless myths. To be shelved alongside ancient Greco-Roman myths and legends.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Just for clarity, it is a holy personal name to some who would hold it in reverence. Therefore, if one is to write it, it should never be erased. As that is impossible to dictate, one refrains from writing it. It is a preference, and never did I insinuate that hell would be to pay if one chose to do otherwise. I leave that up to the intellectuals such as yourself.

Didn't you used to have a owl in your pic there? You seem like the same person from your writing style. Was it you that went on and on about empathy? Then as a crowning moment stated that they wished another would die in a car crash so they could pass by them as they are bleeding and not help, solely because they didn't like how they drived? I could be mistaken, please tell me if you are or aren't.

I can appreciate you are fully grown, as you are definitely older than I by your own admission. Fully matured, now that could be a point of contention. Tolerance does not ride only on the right side of the street, if you catch my meaning. If calling each other names and pointing at each other screaming the equivalent of "neener neener neener" is what the future holds, then let me die right now.

And for your information, civilized society is accepting of others views and eradicating prejudice, no matter where it lies.
And are you also aware, that an intelligent mind would appreciate from whence they came. It is the reason people keep written histories and artifacts of days gone by. It is the reason the Louvre exists, or the Smithsonian. This is what a person with intelligence understands. What you put on display is prejudice in a foolish and illogical manner. Your hate for any Christian thought is evident. It might be time civilized society moves more away from your philosophies. Has that consideration ever dawned on you? Just ask Donald Sterling. They are like a dinosaur in the present day, waiting for the end that approaches swiftly.

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

You never posted any experimental data to support your position. That's all we need to know about your position. There's no evidence, therefore, there's no proof.

When you have evidence, evidence that is recognized by any legitimate scientist as real evidence, then you can argue your case.

As for not understanding evolution, I think it is you who needs to go back to the drawing board. And while you're at it, learn some real science - not the canned packages they're feeding you at Answers in Genesis which require no critical thinking.

Any real scientist would see that my understanding has been shown multiple times over the course of my postings. It is you who insists on making themself appear foolish. You have been quite successful at it. And what I have provided has not been from Answers in Genesis. It has been from an actual understanding of the things you claim to understand but do not. As I said, I never made you look foolish. You have accomplished this goal solely on your own. After that I feel as if I am abusing a child. Does this sound familiar?

One who does not even recognize what the theory of evolution is, nor where it came from is not the one to stand and try to prove it's existence. But yet you go on, proving that someone else's experiment proved that bacteria can adapt to different mediums. Do you even understand what the experiment itself was about or what it actually tested? Please explain. Show me your understanding on display. Or will you decline as I have seen before?

If you wish for a lion to tear you to pieces, step into it's domicile. I do not wish to make you look foolish. But I do not like those that talk as if they understand when truly it is evident that they do not. You appear to not even get the concept, the conception, or the implementation of evolution. Then you parade "evidence" procured by others as if you yourself tested and confirmed them. Then you champion it as if you slayed the mighty beast of creationism yourself. Sing your praises, boy. To anyone with a mind you appear like a monkey tossing fecal material while grunting and swaying. Mayhaps you consider that maybe you yourself prove the existence of evolution in this manner? Can you even understand that? I'm not sure you can.

And what evidence exactly could I provide that both Creationist and Evolutionist require faith to believe? This conversation? I think somewhere in your malfunctioning apparatus that you forgot how this conversation started. Maybe go back, start over. Otherwise, I am done. I find no joy in this, nor any competition.

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

You never posted any experimental data to support your position. That's all we need to know about your position. There's no evidence, therefore, there's no proof.

When you have evidence, evidence that is recognized by any legitimate scientist as real evidence, then you can argue your case.

As for not understanding evolution, I think it is you who needs to go back to the drawing board. And while you're at it, learn some real science - not the canned packages they're feeding you at Answers in Genesis which require no critical thinking.

Any real scientist would see that my understanding has been shown multiple times over the course of my postings. It is you who insists on making themself appear foolish. You have been quite successful at it. And what I have provided has not been from Answers in Genesis. It has been from an actual understanding of the things you claim to understand but do not. As I said, I never made you look foolish. You have accomplished this goal solely on your own. After that I feel as if I am abusing a child. Does this sound familiar?

One who does not even recognize what the theory of evolution is, nor where it came from is not the one to stand and try to prove it's existence. But yet you go on, proving that someone else's experiment proved that bacteria can adapt to different mediums. Do you even understand what the experiment itself was about or what it actually tested? Please explain. Show me your understanding on display. Or will you decline as I have seen before?

If you wish for a lion to tear you to pieces, step into it's domicile. I do not wish to make you look foolish. But I do not like those that talk as if they understand when truly it is evident that they do not. You appear to not even get the concept, the conception, or the implementation of evolution. Then you parade "evidence" procured by others as if you yourself tested and confirmed them. Then you champion it as if you slayed the mighty beast of creationism yourself. Sing your praises, boy. To anyone with a mind you appear like a monkey tossing fecal material while grunting and swaying. Mayhaps you consider that maybe you yourself prove the existence of evolution in this manner? Can you even understand that? I'm not sure you can.

And what evidence exactly could I provide that both Creationist and Evolutionist require faith to believe? This conversation? I think somewhere in your malfunctioning apparatus that you forgot how this conversation started. Maybe go back, start over. Otherwise, I am done. I find no joy in this, nor any competition.

Sorry. You lose.

Evolution is described in detail and proven through scientific methods. In case you are not familiar with scientific evidence and how it works:

Scientific evidence serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Your "understanding" encompasses nothing that would pass the rigorous requirements of science to prove your position. Without substantive evidence derived from objective observation and analysis, your position amounts to a lot of hot air.

You've avoided the evidence presented. You're unable to produce any evidence of your own. In other words, you've done what every proponent of your position does - you attack genuine science and hope that the other side doesn't ask too many questions.

However, in this case, you've lost by default. Those are the rules of debate. No evidence, you lose.

homepage.ntu.edu.tw...
5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

But this is by...Answers in Genesis! Young earth creationists! That's the problem!

It's not a discussion of if there is a God ...it's the young earth and Adam and Eve vs science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Whatever Darwin said or was interpreted to say has little relevance to hard evidence. .

Darwin is the actual conception of the theory of evolution when confronted with this: "Forget Darwin He's old news."

Before this, I predicted accurately that you would use the test you used as "proof". Upon further investigation, I asked you to explain what the experiment actually did, how it was tested, etc. You responded with a explanation of the scientific process copy and pasted. Not the experiment, mind you. The definition of the general process of experimentation.

You have won the day, sir. The process of how your mind works confirms, for me at least, that you definitely descended from apes. For this some prize should be in order. Please forward your address so I might FedEx you a banana or two.

Also for the giggles:
Me:
Do you even understand what the experiment itself was about or what it actually tested? Please explain. Show me your understanding on display"

You:
You've avoided the evidence presented. You're unable to produce any evidence of your own. In other words, you've done what every proponent of your position does - you attack genuine science and hope that the other side doesn't ask too many questions.

I would bust out with Isn't it Ironic, but my singing voice is lacking. Did I ask too many questions, Mr. Nobel? Oh how the curtain gets pulled back, and the mighty Oz is shaken. Have fun convincing everyone else you are learned. The truth comes out when you hold them to the light.

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.


As I said, evolution has nothing to do with origins or initial states. You're changing the definition to suit your position.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

Splendid, you have demonstrates that you are familiar with Darwin and his lovely On Origins of Species. Unfortunately, you have also unknowingly demonstrated your unequivocal bias/ignorance to how evolutionary theory and Anthropology have both flourished and changed the paradigm since Darwin was aboard the Beagle. See, you are so hung up on establishing a die hard doctrine and definition from which to argue from your condescending bully pulpit that you totally missed the fact that Anthropology as a whole has moved well beyond Darwin and his initial postulations. It's been over 150 years since On Origins of Species was published and consequently science as well as the rest of the world has moved on. This is not meant to take away from the fine foundation poured by Darwin from which the rest of us attempt to work through the myriad mysteries of our past, it's implications are much more far reaching than that. Darwin laid the groundwork for sure, but he wasn't the first individual to hypothesize on what we now call evolution and he certainly will not be the last to break new ground in Anthropology or its related fields.

You had claimed in a previous post the Evolutionary Theory claims that humans can generate from amoebas, which clearly is not what is stated, taught, postulated or anything else of that nature. Yes, we are able to reverse engineer DNA so to speak, but more accurately we are able to look at the code and see where and roughly when changes occurred which lets us follow the evolutionary road map in reverse. We KNOW that H. Sapiens Sapiens shares a common ancestor with the other great apes and that genetic split was approximately 10 million YA. We KNOW that we can trace every living thing back in time, we KNOW that evolution is a real,undisputable process. we know that nearly 4 billion YA life was much simpler in nature on earth, phytoplankton, algae and single celled organisms ruled the world. We KNOW for a fact what happened as a result of the Precambrian explosion and that for some reason life became very complex in a fairly short period of time geologically speaking(Around 10 million years). So to me, its rather puzzling when people make sordid claims regarding testable, repeatable,hypothesis and indisputable fossil records and then they just add the icing on the cake with their condescending attitude and curt replies to other posters. You can string together some quality syntax so you clearly aren't an idiot, why the need to feel better about yourself by ridiculing and being demeaning towards others?

And FYI, hooked on phonics works for some people. I only say this because there were a few instances where reading comp would have been your ally. BuzzyWigs wasn't claiming the Ken Ham et al were responsible for the Noah film, it was a statement regarding the litany of religious based films on the docket of late. send me an address and I'll hit you off with a decoder ring once I get to the bottom of my cracker jacks.

Well, from the context of the conversation, which started if I may remind you, by me stating that both sides should be mindful of other ideas and to demean another with name calling is foolish. That was, in fact, the beginning. I merely stated that both sides needed to have faith to believe what they believe, which has never been refuted. No one, including you sir, was alive in those days to witness the process of life. So how can you empirically say that evolution is without a doubt the way things occurred? That was the initial posting. Maybe you go back and look.

What it became is someone breaking ground on the demeaning talk. I would like you to show me what I have done to demean anyone. So by agreeing that one descended from apes I am demeaning another? I am just not agreeing that I descended from apes. There are actual studies that show that what man possesses is not just a genetic mutation, but something far far greater. Am I to believe that a 3% difference in the genetic structure of a man and a ape(number could be wrong, not an expert) means that a man now possesses the ability to perform complex calculations while the other cannot. Also it is debatable whether apes even think as we do. Would you say that an ape says "I think therefore I am" as Descartes does? Does a ape perceive his existence or question his beginnings? They are all valid questions. What you declare that I am guilty of is essentially what you are guilty of. Are you not also establishing a die hard doctrine when you never even consider other things as plausible? A archaeologist goes into holes in the mountains in Arizona, wishing to dictate whether they are caves or domiciles. What does he look for in this endeavor? Signs of design. Doors, windows, functional tools. Yet you see almost all living things with the same implements(eyes, mouth, ears, skin, etc) and don't follow the same logic. If you don't see it, I cannot show it to you.

Also, I never bullied anyone, and advised him at the start to find another, as I suspected him and I had interactions, only with him using another alias. Like I stated, if you fight ferociously for being descended from apes, how is it then condescending to agree? If I am guilty consider this: Did they not first condescend themselves? Also, would you also classify me as a nutter, or unlearned? It is prejudice to say these things. If you condone that, then so be it. It will only limit your own character. Not mine.

I stand by the words I speak. I always do, I always will. It is a character thing. And as far as reading comp goes, I don't think you would find a professor in the world that would support you. If someone starts a conversation that starts with a movie made by Answers in Genesis, then follows it up with "Have you seen the bevy of other films?" then within the context of the conversation, one is referring to the films also being inside the same circle. If not, one must separate the films so that the context does not apply. And clearly, both of those films have nothing at all to do with Answers in Genesis. Noah, extraordinarily so.

And as far as humans generating from amoebas, the theory of evolution states that it is the process by which life has moved forward from a single universal ancestor(thought to be a unicellular organism, an amoeba curiously fits this description) to many different forms of life, up to and including humans. So my description was adequate and accurate as if not for the amoeba, according to evolution, there would be no humans. Maybe your reading comp is not as good as it appears to be, as this simple level of comprehension appears to have confused you. Remember that you ended off a quality rant about being demeaning to others with "And FYI, hooked on phonics works for some people." Hmmmm.

You know how much of science is accepted as fact now which has never been adequately tested? How about C-14 dating, which is so important to your theory? Varying levels of carbon in the atmosphere(which I'm sure is another concern of yours) has shown to give erratic results. This has been proven. But yet C-14 is still used empirically. One might see the house of cards for what it is. A politically motivated movement not based upon science, but politics.

And where, pray tell, is this common ancestor your peers have so diligently sought for? Surely the fossil record supports you. There must have been so many.

Now I ask: have I bullied you as well?

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
As I have stated, it hasn't been proven, nor will it be proven. Everything around you reeks of design. The more you learn, the more you see it could be no other way. It is actually more believable than what you propose. But both require faith to understand.


When you say it "hasn't been proven", what do you think those experiments show?? Why do you think they do them?? If it's not proof, why isn't it? Those questions must be answered. Otherwise, it's a default in favor of proof of evolution.

The reason it doesn't prove evolution, is because the bacteria being produced is still E. Coli. It isn't Clostridium Botulinum or any other type of bacteria, it is E. Coli. It has always been E. Coli. And I did predict you would toss this out a few comments ago, did I not? Turn a E. Coli into a bird without manipulating it at all, and then I will default in favor of evolution.

perfect!! lol.

me too!

turn a frog into a t-rex and i will believe.

not like some politicos "evolving" on certain issues.
that is more like "specialization"

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: pleasethink

What is it to you exactly how I write the word G-d?

Just wondering, as I said.
Is it somehow sealing one's fate as hell-bound if they write out the proper word?

And you are primarily who I was referring to in the name calling foolishness. That is why I exposed your own. Please grow up. Your prejudice has no place in civilized society.

I'm fully grown.

Civilized society recognizes that ancient mythology and anthologies of them are only that - mythology/anthologies of myths. Ancient, timeless myths. To be shelved alongside ancient Greco-Roman myths and legends.

lol, says whom?

"legitimate scientists?" wth does that even mean?

i suppose science can deduce some things, but everyone does that.

trying to back-engineer life is insane and a lost cause.

HSS go back, how long that we know about?

sharks and others have been around, how long?

horseshoe crabs.

bacteria, virus, ferns.

sorry, pleasethink, don't know if i am helping or hurting.

a reply to: tsingtao

I think you are brave just for agreeing with me. The numbers are not in our favor, even if some of them are the same person with multiple accounts. But the important thing is that you assist yourself. It appears all of us have decisions to make in our life. I am not against another speaking truths, or even their opinion. But to spread things that aren't true is misleading. To say evolution is proven is false. Empirically false. That is why the discussion remains. If it was proven, the discussion would have ended a long time ago. But the proof is elusive. You would think it would be everywhere you look. Considering a Chimp Human Last Common Ancestor would have had to be all around to make what evolutionists say true. But despite their best efforts to find it, it has never been found, anywhere. But the proof that G-d exists appears to me to be everywhere you look. But it is okay that you/they don't see it. If you/they don't look you/they won't find. That is true in everything. Not directed at you personally, but at everyone in general.

I believe what is important is not to look for what others would applaud you for, as that is superficial. Who cares if people don't like what I say? I call things as I see it. It is my choice. It is easy to take the road most traveled, or to go with the current. I find it is against the current that brings the most reward. It is questioning everything where man finds the most answers. If in doing so, I find something that is true in my understanding, I will hold onto it. I won't be fearful to profess it. I don't care if it wins me friends or enemies. I came in alone, I will go out alone. But I will feel good about who I was. I will feel strong in my character. I will stand despite adversity. And I will die with peace in my heart knowing that I did what I should do. I did not take the easy road. I took my road. And for this I give my thanks. I have learned so much, and have experienced the greatest joy. The pain has made me who I am. The struggle has provided me wisdom. And I have touched the face of G-d(figuratively of course). And His spirit has fulfilled my ambition. May you all know what that feels like one day. To truly live without fear, while witnessing the greatest mind that ever was/will be do His work, according to His will. It is a masterpiece in motion.

originally posted by: pleasethink
Well, from the context of the conversation, which started if I may remind you, by me stating that both sides should be mindful of other ideas and to demean another with name calling is foolish. That was, in fact, the beginning. I merely stated that both sides needed to have faith to believe what they believe, which has never been refuted. No one, including you sir, was alive in those days to witness the process of life. So how can you empirically say that evolution is without a doubt the way things occurred? That was the initial posting. Maybe you go back and look.

I'm well aware of how you began your premise. I'm equally aware of how quickly you descended into hypocrisy with your demeaning bantor. You can pretty it up however you like with the widow dressing of your choice but you completely countered your own stated goal. You can claim all day that both sides require faith but I've never worked on faith, I deal in facts that can be independently verified with results that can be reproduced. That simply isn't a faith based world view. Asking if I was alive is pretty much a red herring because you already know the answer. It still doesn't change the fact that what has happened in the past leaves traces in the present for us to examine. Denying the truth of this is self deluding ignorance in perpetuation.

There are actual studies that show that what man possesses is not just a genetic mutation, but something far far greater. Am I to believe that a 3% difference in the genetic structure of a man and a ape(number could be wrong, not an expert) means that a man now possesses the ability to perform complex calculations while the other cannot.

You are presupposing the outcome of the question prior to validating it. Can you cite these studies you refer to? I can't really comment on them with any degree if veracity without knowing what I'm arguing against. I'm curious how you have reached your conclusion that other apes are incapable of any sort of math? And for the record, humans ARE APES.

Also it is debatable whether apes even think as we do. Would you say that an ape says "I think therefore I am" as Descartes does? Does a ape perceive his existence or question his beginnings? They are all valid questions.

That's one interpretation I suppose. You are using a blanket term of "ape" with no clear context which makes it rather difficult to address. Aside from not having the same vocalization range as HSS, other apes do have language, social hierarchy and relationships, varying emotions and problem solving skills. They aren't as different from us as you seem to think.

What you declare that I am guilty of is essentially what you are guilty of. Are you not also establishing a die hard doctrine when you never even consider other things as plausible? A archaeologist goes into holes in the mountains in Arizona, wishing to dictate whether they are caves or domiciles. What does he look for in this endeavor? Signs of design. Doors, windows, functional tools. Yet you see almost all living things with the same implements(eyes, mouth, ears, skin, etc) and don't follow the same logic. If you don't see it, I cannot show it to you.

More presupposition, you really are stretching here to try to pigeon hole me as something I am not. I simply do not view the entire past as one singular morphology as you claim.

I stand by the words I speak. I always do, I always will. It is a character thing. And as far as reading comp goes, I don't think you would find a professor in the world that would support you. If someone starts a conversation that starts with a movie made by Answers in Genesis, then follows it up with "Have you seen the bevy of other films?" then within the context of the conversation, one is referring to the films also being inside the same circle. If not, one must separate the films so that the context does not apply. And clearly, both of those films have nothing at all to do with Answers in Genesis. Noah, extraordinarily so.

I disagree here, the context was rather clear to several people. Based on the grammar it was fairly evident in my opinion, as to the meaning and it wasnt an implication that Noah was produced by Ham or Hovind et al.

And as far as humans generating from amoebas, the theory of evolution states that it is the process by which life has moved forward from a single universal ancestor(thought to be a unicellular organism, an amoeba curiously fits this description) to many different forms of life, up to and including humans. So my description was adequate and accurate as if not for the amoeba, according to evolution, there would be no humans. Maybe your reading comp is not as good as it appears to be, as this simple level of comprehension appears to have confused you. Remember that you ended off a quality rant about being demeaning to others with "And FYI, hooked on phonics works for some people." Hmmmm.

My reading comp is just fine but thanks for the concern. Just as you stand by your statements, I stand by mine. You are completely misrepresenting evolutionary theory with a rather myopic point of view as to the constraints you feel it must fit into. As for my statement, it was purposely sardonic to make a point. Was it condescending? Purposely so.

You know how much of science is accepted as fact now which has never been adequately tested? How about C-14 dating, which is so important to your theory? Varying levels of carbon in the atmosphere(which I'm sure is another concern of yours) has shown to give erratic results. This has been proven. But yet C-14 is still used empirically. One might see the house of cards for what it is. A politically motivated movement not based upon science, but politics.

How important really is C14 dating to evolutionary theory? If you can't date objects or remains older than approx. 40KYA and we are discussing items that are older then C14 played no roll in the ascribed dates of said object. This argument is is a relic from the mid 80's because while being the most well known, C14 is one of the least used dating techniques used in the current era BECAUSE of its limitations. Additionally, no singular dating technique is utilized, several are generally used and results cross checked. Tis isn't some random pulling a ticket out of a hat dating quagmire like you seem to believe.

And where, pray tell, is this common ancestor your peers have so diligently sought for? Surely the fossil record supports you. There must have been so many.

Considering that the sum of all fossils discovered thus ar account for approximately 1% of species that have trudged across earth your making an incredulous leap here.

Now I ask: have I bullied you as well?

No, your tone in this particular reply lacks the condescension of your replies to others.

a reply to: Phantom423

Please tell us what you were going to say.
I want to hear it. Don't let the insults get you down. (I know, I know, easier said than done.)

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
As I have stated, it hasn't been proven, nor will it be proven. Everything around you reeks of design. The more you learn, the more you see it could be no other way. It is actually more believable than what you propose. But both require faith to understand.


When you say it "hasn't been proven", what do you think those experiments show?? Why do you think they do them?? If it's not proof, why isn't it? Those questions must be answered. Otherwise, it's a default in favor of proof of evolution.

The reason it doesn't prove evolution, is because the bacteria being produced is still E. Coli. It isn't Clostridium Botulinum or any other type of bacteria, it is E. Coli. It has always been E. Coli. And I did predict you would toss this out a few comments ago, did I not? Turn a E. Coli into a bird without manipulating it at all, and then I will default in favor of evolution.

perfect!! lol.

me too!

turn a frog into a t-rex and i will believe.

not like some politicos "evolving" on certain issues.
that is more like "specialization"

You're positing something that's inaccurate. Frogs and T-Rexs came from the same ancestor.

a reply to: peter vlar

When you declare that proof exists, then never show anything that appears to prove that man evolved down the line from a single celled organism. What you champion is not proof. And you rant from a position of illogic, of which no intelligent debate is possible. When someone clearly displays your illogic, you dance around it and try to make intelligently(to you and others of you ilk) worded arguments that are lying blatantly but are not understood because humans in general appear to not have a desire to proceed forth from what one tells them to instead formulate an opinion of their own. Whoever jumps to my rescue is right! Well continue down your unprovable road while claiming it proven. These are the works of foolish men, as is trying to speak sense to one who clearly has none.

At least I admit that what I believe requires faith. It is because it does. That is understanding on display, not words that sound intelligent but lack intelligence in every which way possible. I suggest you look up empirical evidence, the origin of evolution, the theory of evolution, and anything else to argue your point in a more constructive manner.

Notice how they dance around the HCLCA? And how about this:

"All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago."
from the wiki page for "Evolution"
You'd think they were Fred Estaire reincarnated

Who exactly has addressed this? No one but I. But it must be me, correct? I am the one who does not understand. I had an idea that you would be more intelligent, but alas, you are the same. Championing foolishness with the peanut gallery while the peanut gallery applauds. A real scholar would tear you to pieces. But you would still claim you won. If I were you, I would not like what I saw in the mirror. But I am what you pretend to be. And that is how it shall stay.

Shout out to Ken Ham, the guy who made Bill Nye look stupid in front of the world. The bow tie was nice, though.