Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: Krazysh0t

WARNING! SPOILERS BELOW!






























The "mountains of evidence" doesn't exist.

a reply to: josehelps

Look, you are wrong. It's not proper english. It makes no sense to say "I was doing an etiology." That's like saying, "I was doing a biology," or "I was doing a Chemistry." Here are 2 examples of how you could have phrased that: 1) I investigated the etiological basis of the bible's association with the supernatural
2) I researched the role of space aliens in the etiology of human supernatural powers

And for your future reference, here are a few more examples:

The etiology of these tumors remains unknown, great advances have been made in their diagnosis and treatment.

The etiology of the boston accent can be traced back to the english accent of the mid 1600's.

In an attempt to identify the molecular etiology of the tumors DNA was extracted from paraffin fixed tissue from both patients.

The etiology of the problem is intellectually interesting; but the immediate effect of this crisis is potentially devastating.

a reply to: josehelps

And everything you have just described constitutes it as being a belief based purely on uneducated conjecture (that means guessing) and faith. This is all your interpretation of what you think happened to the human race many years ago. The majority of your beliefs are based on 1) what you think a few lines in the bible are referring to, 2) your belief that aliens exist (although theres no evidence of such), 3) your belief that supernatural powers exist (although theres no evidence of such), and 4) your incorrect understanding of what the scientific literature tells us. My favorite part is that a pastor at a random mission church told you that your findings are entirely possible. LOL.

a reply to: josehelps

And this is my last comment to you, it's been a huge waste of my time. But I'd like to point out that you just stated that you would bet your family member's lives on the fact that god was a space alien who abducted adam and eve from another planet and brought them to earth. Wow.

a reply to: kayej1188
e·ti·ol·o·gy
ˌētēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: aetiology; plural noun: aetiologies; noun: etiology; plural noun: etiologies

1.
Medicine
the cause, set of causes, or manner of causation of a disease or condition.
"a disease of unknown etiology"
the causation of diseases and disorders as a subject of investigation.
2.
the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation

If an Etiology can be an investigation of the cause or reason for something, then there should be nothing wrong with saying one can do an etiology of our disorders, as described verbatim in the definition.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: kayej1188
e·ti·ol·o·gy
ˌētēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: aetiology; plural noun: aetiologies; noun: etiology; plural noun: etiologies

1.
Medicine
the cause, set of causes, or manner of causation of a disease or condition.
"a disease of unknown etiology"
the causation of diseases and disorders as a subject of investigation.
2.
the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation

If an Etiology can be an investigation of the cause or reason for something, then there should be nothing wrong with saying one can do an etiology of our disorders, as described verbatim in the definition.

so diseases are proof that evolution is incorrect? am i reading this correctly?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well like I have already stated multiple times now, the fact that she was identified as the MRCA is one. The fact that, that she has the only unbroken lines of descent to all living humans today is another. Clearly meaning we are inbred, which is verified by the over 4,000 defects found in our genes.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The theory (which by the way, theory implies opinion or unproven guesses) that evolution is the model for which all life stems, is impossible.

You see, there is a 50/50 chance of life coming out with defects, so much so that all species would have ended long ago. However we aren't even talking about the impossible changes in which Evolution is able to allegedly make by starting a new species, and erasing all of it's prior origin in it's own DNA. In English what this means is that we are only related to primates, because you pretend that we are. Even if science has concluded that our DNA and chromosomes are similar enough to call it such, that's all in the eye of the beholder. In this case, who exactly is the beholder.

It's already been determined that the two chromosomes which are fused in humans but not in primates, clearly have different DNA, and are NOT related, and that diagnoses actually came from an evolutionist.
In addition, fused chromosomes are NOT found naturally in the wild, meaning our chromosomes were fused in a lab, or at least in this case, Adam and Eve's were.

NIH is also omitting information about the backdating of our TRUE lineage. All they are letting is know about is the MRCA. Isn't this in the slightest suspicious to you? I mean, they basically had two options. They could reveal to the public that they have concluded that our species is probably billions of years old, and be looked down upon by incredulous people like they obviously don't know what they are doing, or they just come forward with the MRCA.
In essence you are believing that Humans are so much alike to primates that it's indisputable, while there is over 4,000 defects which are telling a different story. Also notice how NIH also made no mention about defects prior to the MRCA.

a reply to: josehelps

Behold!!!



Your argument has been invalidated.

We've been through this rodeo before.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sure most of us remember this infamous 500 page thread. This guy is clearly Itsthetooth. From the target food, to the dictionary definition semantics arguments, to the arguments about milk and calcium, to the complete lack of understanding about evolutio. It's pretty clear at this point that he's back under a different name, repeating the same nonsense.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He's an obvious troll. Please don't feed him.

a reply to: kayej1188

Uneducated conjecture, HA. Facts found in a book are not my opinion. Don't shoot the messenger. It's not MY interpretation, it's fundamental facts of whats found in the bible.

If you would have simply of read the preface, you would instantly know you're wrong. But that's where people always fail, they refuse to read, accept, or understand the truth.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So what, so does a rat, a scorpion, a mouse, a hamster, a lizard, and dozens of other creatures. What makes you think this one is so special?

a reply to: Barcs

Yes, like Barcs says, quit feeding the troll a line of &%#@.

I can always tell when the other people in these arguments don't have a leg to stand on, they are first unable to disprove the scientific facts that match with the bible, so have to turn the conversation to other things, like I'm using wrong syntax, or my spelling is wrong, or I have a criminal record therefore I'm not credible, or I didn't supply any authoritative references about this subject at hand, yet when I ask them who they would consider as one, I NEVER get a response.

I understand what our alleged God (or space daddy) did to us was set us back and dumb us down by making us start over from scratch, but please, Evolution? Come on people, we aren't that dumbed down, are we?

Get away from theories and start sticking to facts, like I'm doing. I'm glad to see my work is well observed here, keeping disinformation at bay.

Now if I'm wrong, then tell me so, and explain to me with facts, not theories.

The silence is golden.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Of course you over looked the fact that the species of primates which does have a tail, is not the same one we are allegedly closest too, and you also apparently missed the fact that it's also a little odd that NOT having a tail is the norm, as most humans don't.

Seriously what you are claiming here would be the equivalent of saying that a rare few cats, (which we theorize are related to lions) happen to have warts, and few people have warts, therefore we must be related to lions.

It's a typical day in the mind of an evolutionist. Connecting dots that aren't supposed to be connected.

Why is this thread still alive? No one is going to "win". All that's left to see now is who gets the last word. You guys have done all the educating that's going to happen in this thread. And you can't make anyone accept the facts. so what's the point?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Why is this thread still alive? No one is going to "win". All that's left to see now is who gets the last word. You guys have done all the educating that's going to happen in this thread. And you can't make anyone accept the facts. so what's the point?

"Facts"
"Win"

You have summed up this threads problem in its entirety. Because you believe what you believe to be fact, you will never agree. Same with us. Difference is, you guys see it as about winning. That says it all.

Are we going to continue this thread or should we just let it die out?

I vote for the latter..

a reply to: TechUnique

You have summed up this threads problem in its entirety. Because you believe what you believe to be fact, you will never agree. Same with us. Difference is, you guys see it as about winning. That says it all.

I put the word "win" in quotation marks for a reason, so you can quit that facetious attitude you've adopted. it's a very loosely applied word and while your education appears to be lacking in some areas, im all but positive you are not that stupid.

the stuff about facts is just you continuing to troll us for lack of a more intelligent response.

Are we going to continue this thread or should we just let it die out?

I vote for the latter..

i rest my case.

a reply to: josehelps

Dude, the content of your posts are so outrageously unsubstantiated, illogical, and ridiculous, the only thing I can hope to show you are the things that I can actually prove you have wrong. I've already pointed out every aspect of your argument that is logically invalid, backed by actually scientific evidence, but those are things you refuse to acknowledge. So I'm left with pointing out your absolutely awful word usage, sentence structure, and understanding of basic basic scientific concepts. The way in which you speak about DNA and genetic mutations would bring any geneticist or molecular biologist to tears from laughter. You clearly have zero idea as to what a genetic mutation even is and how it occurs. These are things that have been shown for the past 50 years, backed up by tons of irrefutable evidence. You make up your views of the world based on the *extremely* limited knowledge and understanding you have of basic, proven concepts. It's almost impossible having a debate with you, because of your complete lack of willingness to approach concepts and claims of evidence in a rational, logical manner. It's like arguing with a toddler about why he should have his toys. I truly do feel sorry for you, I can tell that your life is an enormous struggle, and you've managed to gain attention in the only way you could. Making outrageous claims on an online chat forum. Please, I beg you, when sh*t hits the fan, don't take anyone else down with you.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: TzarChasm

The theory (which by the way, theory implies opinion or unproven guesses) that evolution is the model for which all life stems, is impossible.

You see, there is a 50/50 chance of life coming out with defects, so much so that all species would have ended long ago. However we aren't even talking about the impossible changes in which Evolution is able to allegedly make by starting a new species, and erasing all of it's prior origin in it's own DNA. In English what this means is that we are only related to primates, because you pretend that we are. Even if science has concluded that our DNA and chromosomes are similar enough to call it such, that's all in the eye of the beholder. In this case, who exactly is the beholder.

It's already been determined that the two chromosomes which are fused in humans but not in primates, clearly have different DNA, and are NOT related, and that diagnoses actually came from an evolutionist.
In addition, fused chromosomes are NOT found naturally in the wild, meaning our chromosomes were fused in a lab, or at least in this case, Adam and Eve's were.

NIH is also omitting information about the backdating of our TRUE lineage. All they are letting is know about is the MRCA. Isn't this in the slightest suspicious to you? I mean, they basically had two options. They could reveal to the public that they have concluded that our species is probably billions of years old, and be looked down upon by incredulous people like they obviously don't know what they are doing, or they just come forward with the MRCA.
In essence you are believing that Humans are so much alike to primates that it's indisputable, while there is over 4,000 defects which are telling a different story. Also notice how NIH also made no mention about defects prior to the MRCA.

This quote is just a perfect example. None of these claims are true. "Fused chromosomes are NOT found naturally in the wild." This statement is blatantly untrue. Chromosomal fusion is a known, well studied, well documented genetic phenomena. "There is a 50/50 chance of life coming out with defects." Seriously, what does this mean? These are things you are absolutely and entire making up because for some reason they sound just about right to you. I would ask you to back that claim up with at least 1 scientific paper, but the claim makes such little sense, it's not something you will ever found addressed in any type of scientific literature. Are you aware that DNA mutates every time is undergoes replication? Do you know the methods used to compare DNA among humans and other animals? "Our species is probably billions of years old." Which species? Homo Sapiens? So, cite just one scientific paper that could possibly back up this claim. And no, you cannot quote the bible. All you do is completely and entirely make-up various "facts," and mush them together to come up with an absolutely illogical theory, and refuse to provide even 1 source of scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. When you attempt to do this, you either quote thing from various wikipedia pages and government websites and completely misinterpret what it's saying, or you copy things you read off of creation websites.

a reply to: Barcs

I'm starting to actually thing you're right, and he is a troll. A genius troll, one of the best, because he sounds so convincing in his incompetence. If so, someone is getting a pretty good laugh on the other side from getting me worked up. But just judging by this guys persistence, I sadly tend to think he's not a troll, and these are things he actually believes. It's so frustrating, it's like a video I cant win. It's like I'm arguing with a computer programmed to just keep spewing out more and more nonsense no matter what. An un-winable game.