Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Perhaps you do not understand how this works. However, posting links to evidence is the same as providing it. In point of fact, its superior, as there is no chance for transcription errors, or bias being introduced.

Its pretty clear you are not willing to discuss the evidence that has been provided .

Posting links to something you claim to be 'evidence', is completely ridiculous!

A professor would laugh you out of the classroom, for being such an idiot, and nobody would even THINK of doing such a thing.


Your argument is that evolution is true, and to SUPPORT that claim, you cite a source, and EXPLAIN one specific point, where it shows the proof, with specific details. Any one point you choose is up to you. If you can't make a specific point to support your claim from your own sources, it's not up to others to muddle through your puke.


So, take a specific point from your source, that supports your claim. A concept even schoolchildren know to follow in class, so you should grasp the idea, no?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

ahem... see...

a reply to: turbonium1

Let them be.

You'll end up destroying yourself trying to convince.

You be a child of God, let them be a child of Evolution.

Go find a nice piece of land to farm on and forget about them. When their evolution is complete and the males all have non-working vaginas you get to claim the world back. They certainly are falling apart mentally. Every single one of them.

No point arguing. Might as well try and convert Muslims while you at it. Better prospects there mate.

a reply to: Akragon

You were, while you were demonising turbo.

originally posted by: Analbumcover
a reply to: turbonium1

When their evolution is complete and the males all have non-working vaginas you get to claim the world back.

Evolution is never complete. It has no goal.

It's a continuous process that will go on as long as there is life and environmental changes, and as long as that life is left to its normal processes while living in those changing environments.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Every new stage in evolution would be a completion if it existed.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Every new stage in evolution would be a completion if it existed.

Not really. There is no set "end of stage" or "beginning of new stage". Evolution is continuous and ongoing. Every species on Earth is still in the continuous process of evolving.

Here is a video that illustrates how evolution is generally smooth and continuous, and has no end and no goal. There is no real time during the evolution of an organism that you can point to and say "it's done" or "that stage of evolution is done".

This video does not exactly address that, but the concept presented in the video is reliant upon that idea.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Once the specie is adapted to the new environment evolution would be completed.

I assume when the environment doesn't change the specie doesn't change either so that would mean completion right?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Once the specie is adapted to the new environment evolution would be completed.

I assume when the environment doesn't change the specie doesn't change either so that would mean completion right?

Environmental factors are constantly changing on both a micro and macro level.

I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape when others don't believe in evolution. It's either real or it isn't, we all have a 50% chance of being correct on where we stand. It can't be proven 100%, nor can it be disproved 100%. You're an idiot for believing it and I'm an idiot for not believing it. Nobody ever wins this argument and we're all idiots in the end, even those of you who think your turds smell like tulips and your IQ's are infinite, so why do we still argue about it?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Enough so for specie to change over millions of years?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Why sure. A few hundred thousand years ago we were still like we are now, but before that we were supposed to be monkeys. In a few more hundred thousand years, I'm sure we'll be something else. Robots probably. We'll slowly morph into them. Those over-intelligent scientists can tell us where we came from, which is completely irrelevant, but not where we're going.

Thanks for nothing, smart guys.

a reply to: LSU2018

Suddenly the enivornment changed in such manner we gained speech. There must have been oxygen one day.

and we seem to have lost the adaption to trees.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Noinden

Sorry but I have trouble believing turbo went to grade school let alone collage or university... I don't believe there is such thing as an educated "flat earther"

Sweet irony

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your argument is that evolution is true, and to SUPPORT that claim, you cite a source, and EXPLAIN one specific point, where it shows the proof, with specific details. Any one point you choose is up to you. If you can't make a specific point to support your claim from your own sources, it's not up to others to muddle through your puke.


So, take a specific point from your source, that supports your claim. A concept even schoolchildren know to follow in class, so you should grasp the idea, no?

exactly, if they can't explain it in their own words, it is safe to say they are blindly following the 'infallible' whitecoats.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

If you're trying to prove God doesn't exist you're doing a poor job.

LMFAO!!! I'm not trying to prove god doesn't exist, the topic is EVOLUTION, and I was defending it. Why are you unable to tell the difference? The topic of this thread is "can you prove evolution wrong?" Can you? Can anybody in this thread? NOPE.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are beyond help. Please tone down the insanity a few notches, then you MIGHT be able to have a rational discussion instead of repeating lies over and over. Proving evolution is not my job, that is the job of scientists and they have thoroughly done such. Your denial is not an argument. How does a post this dishonest get stars? People have no intellectual honest on here. It's sad. They just star every post that agrees with their faith. Pretty obvious too who is doing it. (look at the post below LOL!)

a reply to: Barcs

You know nothing.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Great argument bro!

originally posted by: Barcs

LMFAO!!! I'm not trying to prove god doesn't exist, the topic is EVOLUTION, and I was defending it. Why are you unable to tell the difference? The topic of this thread is "can you prove evolution wrong?" Can you? Can anybody in this thread? NOPE.

Dinosaurs lived alongside humans, and carbon dating dinosaur remains proves they were way younger than is blindly taught in school. This causes the timeline of the earth to be wayyyyy too short for evolution to wave its magical wand of super-long unfathomable timelines that trick people into thinking genetic mutative miracles can occur given enough time.