Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

a reply to: cooperton

Oh please that's the colloquial use of it and a typo I didn't correct.
If someone is allergic to bananas it's mostly because of the histamine increase.

a reply to: cooperton

I did do my research, just because you "think" it looks like something else doesn't make it so.

do not be fooled by cast replicas, if there is no original then they are simply speculating

Also, nowhere does it say they are casts or replicas, thats your assumption?

originally posted by: Kurokage

Also, nowhere does it say they are casts or replicas, thats your assumption?

Try to find a complete real fossil of Pakicetus or Aetiocetus, you wont be able. The only complete fossils shown are casts based off guess-work. They extrapolate off sparse data to fit their narrative and then peddle it as supposed fact. There's really no science to refute because there's insufficient data for them to even make a claim. And of course the only full skeletal remain they have of a supposed transitional horse fossil looks exactly like a baby horse fossil.

Every single aspect of the supposed proof of evolution is a house of cards based off faith rather than science.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Oh please that's the colloquial use of it and a typo I didn't correct.
If someone is allergic to bananas it's mostly because of the histamine increase.

typo? How is the 'e' and 'r' keys a possible typo when you're looking to type 'a'? You genuinely thought it was spelled 'histermine'... sounds like you're just still lying to try to maintain your illusion that you're always right.

A doctor would never say someone is allergic to histamine when it is actually bananas that are causing the allergic response. Histamine is one of the many components that orchestrate allergic responses. There's a key distinction between the two.

I'm only digging in like this because of your history of condescending remarks. I figure I might as well deliver to you what you sow.

I don't believe either

If a God did it well I pity anyone or anything that knows all and everything that would be torture .

The thought of ape to human type of evolution is ridiculous IMO

So we either have multiple Gods or we just are and will be is some way or another no begging or end .

a reply to: cooperton

try to find a complete real fossil of Pakicetus or Aetiocetus, you wont be able. The only complete fossils shown are casts based off guess-work. They extrapolate off sparse data to fit their narrative and then peddle it as supposed fact. There's really no science to refute because there's insufficient data for them to even make a claim. And of course the only full skeletal remain they have of a supposed transitional horse fossil looks exactly like a baby horse fossil.

Finding a complete fossilized skeleton of anything is very rare, especially if it's spent thousands or millions of years in the "dirt" but does happen from time to time, but extrapolating from the avalible data is all we can do with incomplete skeletons.

Isn't that what religious groups have done too? They've taken hundreds of stories from many cultures and formed them into there own stories and belief structures?

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Homes”

originally posted by: Kurokage

Finding a complete fossilized skeleton of anything is very rare, especially if it's spent thousands or millions of years in the "dirt" but does happen from time to time, but extrapolating from the avalible data is all we can do with incomplete skeletons.

We have a complete T-rex fossil, as well as a 90% complete fossil of a T-rex
We have a 70% complete fossil of a sauropod
we have an 85% complete triceratops fossil with a 98% complete skull

It's not just the big ones either, here is a nearly 100% complete Deinonychus Antirrhopus (raptor) fossil

The reason we have nearly complete dinosaur fossils is because dinosaurs existed. Transitional fossils as proposed by evolutionary theory did not exist, which is why we can't find them. Given the theoretical hundreds of millions of years of transitional evolution, we should have transitional fossils dominating the fossil record. But the opposite is true, we can't find any. This is one of the many reasons why evolution is false.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you honestly think I care that much that I'd be bothered by your opinion about me?
I don't. My opinion of you is not much better, fanatic, blind, misguided and a little 'unpleasant' as you are.

You said you're allergic to bananas. I said it's not the bananas but the increase in histamine not the genes of the banana what is causing your reaction.

And Dude my kite flies 420 foot high it's a miracle not every word has a typo in it.
It's a party where I am.


If you ask me my opinion is still a million times sexier than yours.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage

Finding a complete fossilized skeleton of anything is very rare, especially if it's spent thousands or millions of years in the "dirt" but does happen from time to time, but extrapolating from the avalible data is all we can do with incomplete skeletons.

We have a complete T-rex fossil, as well as a 90% complete fossil of a T-rex
We have a 70% complete fossil of a sauropod
we have an 85% complete triceratops fossil with a 98% complete skull

It's not just the big ones either, here is a nearly 100% complete Deinonychus Antirrhopus (raptor) fossil

The reason we have nearly complete dinosaur fossils is because dinosaurs existed. Transitional fossils as proposed by evolutionary theory did not exist, which is why we can't find them. Given the theoretical hundreds of millions of years of transitional evolution, we should have transitional fossils dominating the fossil record. But the opposite is true, we can't find any. This is one of the many reasons why evolution is false.

The first full T-rex fossil skeleton found wasn't found till 2006. We knew from extrapolation what these creatures looked like long before finding a complete fossil, and only one complete fossil of a creature of that covered large swaths of the globe.
But we now have hundreds of partial transional fossils. I know it's wiki but even they have a large list of these creatures.

a reply to: Kurokage

The first full T-rex fossil skeleton found wasn't found till 2006. We knew from extrapolation what these creatures looked like long before finding a complete fossil, and only one complete fossil of a creature of that cover large swaths of the globe.
But we now have hundreds of partial transional fossils. I know it's wiki but even they have a large list of these creatures.

Wow no one knows as much BS as you do? lol

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Do you honestly think I care that much that I'd be bothered by your opinion about me?
I don't. My opinion of you is not much better, fanatic, blind, misguided and a little 'unpleasant' as you are.

You said you're allergic to bananas. I said it's not the bananas but the increase in histamine not the genes of the banana what is causing your reaction.

And Dude my kite flies 420 foot high it's a miracle not every word has a typo in it.
It's a party where I am.


If you ask me my opinion is still a million times sexier than yours.

I could see this being a script for a cigarette ad. A cigarette trying to seduce some dude who is trying to quit cigs.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Kurokage

The first full T-rex fossil skeleton found wasn't found till 2006. We knew from extrapolation what these creatures looked like long before finding a complete fossil, and only one complete fossil of a creature of that cover large swaths of the globe.
But we now have hundreds of partial transional fossils. I know it's wiki but even they have a large list of these creatures.

Wow no one knows as much BS as you do? lol

For a person claiming religous beliefs, you don't really follow them do you?

originally posted by: Kurokage

The first full T-rex fossil skeleton found wasn't found till 2006. We knew from extrapolation what these creatures looked like long before finding a complete fossil, and only one complete fossil of a creature of that cover large swaths of the globe.
But we now have hundreds of partial transional fossils. I know it's wiki but even they have a large list of these creatures.

So by now we should have an abundace of nearly transitional fossils. Think of all the theoretical transitional hominids that would have led up to humans within the last 5 million years, yet we can't find any of it. How can we find dinosaurs that are supposedly 100s of millions of years old but not more recent transitional fossils? Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

over 150 years later and still nothing to write home about.

originally posted by: Kurokage

For a person claiming religous beliefs, you don't really follow them do you?

Christ called out the 'teachers of the law' (i.e. modern day scientists) very often. He knew that their teachings were preventing people from realizing the truth about them selves. Many souls go astray into meaningless nihilism due to evolutionary theory, it's a serious thing.

a reply to: cooperton

So by now we should have some complete transitional fossil. They should be more numerous than all the dinosaurs since there should be more transitional creatures throughout history than what we see today. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

I don't see how transitional fossils would be more numerours than other fossils. Once a "creature" has adapted to it's new enviroment then it would be easier to procreate and spread, so would would be more populous than the transitional "version"?

Charles Darwin lived from 1809-1882 since then the search for fossils has changed and "evolved" a lot, so it easy to understand how none we know then, who knows there may have been some evidence for it sitting in the London Muesum back then??

a reply to: cooperton

It isn't. It is me trying to point out that the role of Messiah is still open and an ongoing competition taking place right now.
The goal is to realise the Kingdom of God, everybody who doesn't accomplish that is technically a fraud.

originally posted by: Kurokage

I don't see how transitional fossils would be more numerours than other fossils. Once a "creature" has adapted to it's new enviroment then it would be easier to procreate and spread, so would would be more populous than the transitional "version"?

well let's put it this way, there should be more complete transitional fossils in the record than 0.

Charles Darwin lived from 1809-1882 since then the search for fossils has changed and "evolved" a lot

Yeah we proved dinosaurs exist, and essentially disproved transitional creatures existed. It's hard to prove a negative but over 150 years looking for transitional organisms and all we have are dubious samples that are missing most of the skeleton.

originally posted by: Peeple
The goal is to realise the Kingdom of God, everybody who doesn't accomplish that is technically a fraud.

I agree. It's not an easy calling, but it is a light load.

It isn't. It is me trying to point out that the role of Messiah is still open and an ongoing competition taking place right now.

Christ opened the gates and we've had 2,000-some years for new beings to emerge into the possibility of eternal life. When the end comes many will think that is the Messiah, but it is supposed to be the anti-Christ. Some will be able to recognize who is the enemy, some will not.

a reply to: cooperton

well let's put it this way, there should be more complete transitional fossils in the record than 0.

There may not complete skeletal fossils but there are lots of partial fossils, and like many of the dinosaurs fossils found, using deduction and exstrapolation archaeologist were able to figure out what these creatures looked like.

a reply to: cooperton

lol that's a pretty poetic description of a #show like the mess we are in.

originally posted by: Kurokage

There may not complete skeletal fossils but there are lots of partial fossils, and like many of the dinosaurs fossils found, using deduction and exstrapolation archaeologist were able to figure out what these creatures looked like.

Look at the fossil remains of Lucy the Australopithecus. It's embarrassing. they have 10% of her cranium yet you see these elaborate CGI renderings of what she supposedly would have looked like. It's literally propaganda.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

lol that's a pretty poetic description of a #show like the mess we are in.

It's not our duty to save the world, we just gotta play the cards we were dealt. In that sense its actually pretty fun

a reply to: cooperton

Look at the fossil remains of Lucy the Australopithecus. It's embarrassing. they have 10% of her cranium yet you see these elaborate CGI renderings of what she supposedly would have looked like. It's literally propaganda.

Things like hair, skin colour and some soft tissue I would have to agree with, but you only have to look at pictures drawn of people from partial skeletal remains found to know that they can get pretty damn close.