Science against evolution

reply to post by itsthetooth

We never see experimentation with food, unless they are starving, proving they allready know what they are suppose to be eating.

I showed that was a bald faced lie time and time again.

reply to post by colin42

So all along you have known the bible claims that no animal is native to this planet yet claim only man is not natural. Only mans actions are not natural. Quite deceptive of you, certainly not the action of an honest person looking for answers as you claim.

We function and adapt in a world that is not ours and not theirs either.

So if nothing is native to this planet do you include bacteria, plants, insects in fact all organic life?

If a natural disaster wiped things out like pointed out in the bible, it would depend on whether or not all of it was destroyed. As far as the bacteria and organisims, its hard to know.

Of course your revelation means you have blown target food out of the water which leaves your argument against evolution with little more than your claims of ‘outlandish hands’, ‘shoes’, ‘clothes’ and ‘milk’.

Well your assuming that because we adapt, to adapt, to adapt, that this was the intended mode for us to survive, but you have no proof.

This also goes against what interventionists tell us, a group you try to associate yourself with when denying you have made up your one man religion.

So explain to me what happened. These aliens found a floating, lifeless rock orbiting a sun, then what?

According to Sitchen, our planet was prepared for us to mine gold off the planet for another planet. Gold is frequently brought up in the bible as well.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Here you make the false claim that evolution has been witnessed. In order for it to be falsifiable, it would have to be witnessed. Now I'm not aware of any case that has witnessed a species changing into another species, but I would love to see it.

Here is the sort of nonsense posted by creationists. Evolution has been demonstrated. Witnessed means personally seeing. It is a typical creationist bald faced lie to state that it would have to be witnessed.

What I stated was that no out of sequence fossils have ever been found. That would falsify evolution. Trilobites and mammal fossils together would falsify evolution.

Here you make the false claim that biblical events are a bronze age fair tale. I wasn't aware that you single handedly disproved those events, I would like to see some proof, since you seem to have so much of it.

1. Zero evidence for Noah's flood
2. The order of creation in the 2 genesis fairy tales is wrong
3. No evidence whatsoever for exodus

These events did not happen. They are fairy tales from the bronze age.

Evolution is NOT predictable, so these claims about it being tested are false.

A false claim. You should learn a little about science to understand why you are wrong.

It's is in fact a religion when you believe in it and its never been proven or witnessed.

You should learn a little about science to understand why you are wrong.

No one has witnessed man evolving from apes, No one has witnessed any common ancestors being born either.

You have to laugh at the ridiculous claims of creationists. The suggestion that people did not witness events before humans existed has any bearing on the issue is such a joke.

reply to post by itsthetooth

In order for the food cycle to exist in a balance it would require a hell of a lot of intellgence, something that evolution just doesn't have.

Take a basic course in biology to learn why this makes no sense.

Yes the goal posts were moved, because evolution was busted.

False. Completely false. Evolution is a fact. The issue is how it happened. The change in the theory of HOW it happened is something science is designed to do. Science fixes its mistakes. Science glorifies those that find mistakes. Religion on the other hand is stuck with a bronze age fairy tale.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm embarrased for YOU. No one has ever proven evolution to be a working theory, no one has every proven that a species can evolve into another species. Shame on you.

You're not the only closed minded person around. I've met hundreds at creationist events where I see people that also are unable to open their eyes. They are stuck with a dead beat story thousands of years old that makes no sense at all.

Evolution is a fact. The mechanism is still up for debate. No matter how well the current theory works it will always be tested and retested and evaluated, because science is never complacent.

reply to post by Shema


The problem with the creationist stance is that it is demonstrably wrong. Take genesis. It contains 2 creation myths in it. The 2 myths give 2 different orders for creation. Check the fossil record. The fossil record shows us the order in which different life forms appeared on the Earth. Neither of the 2 genesis myths match reality. So why should a known failed claim be taught? There are plenty of failed ideas such as spontaneous generation that are no longer taught and do not need to be taught.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So you ARE admitting that DNA can be changed in the process of evolution. Seriously, you need to contact the authoritys and let them know about this earth breaking news because we rely on that information to not be changed and that change can alter the decision it has in crimes. Basically from what your saying, DNA is useless and we can't depend on it for anything because evolution can change it at anytime, and we have no way of knowing the difference.

That was not stated. Being illiterate about evolution can be fixed. For starters you need to learn what evolution is. Evolution is the observed change. It is not a force or a process or the imaginary god of religions. Evolution is the result of a process.

reply to post by stereologist

Evolution does not cause changes. Evolution are the changes. You are the one with the mistaken ideas. Try taking basic biology at your high school to learn something about the subject.

Thats just a fomalitiy so that you can claim there is no intent within the process.

Pye has been repeatedly shown to be a liar. Latching onto a liar is not a way to learn.

Well a few people including yourself and indicated so, but when I call you on it for proof, you seem to disapear. I would like to see something that claims Pye is wrong about human genetics or even the star child for that matter.

Every time you made that nonsense claim I asked for you to show a species that met your joke of a claim. Each time I showed that you were wrong. Your laughable excuse was that you solely relied on the wikipedia and refused to look at other sources.

You were wrong 100% of the time.

The observed diets just so happen to be limited to wiki, not that it has to be that way. Any diet will do, provided it is accurate. In that not a single person has come up with an alternate claim as to how our feeding works within a species. There are to many patterns that are not afforded in the realm of evolution. As an example, all species would appear to know before hand, what food they are seeking based on the fact that they all choose the same food and never experiment. So as you can see, your WRONG. And I keep explaining this to you but your not getting it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Everything I have presented including Target Food is backed up by evidence. What, do you think Von Daniken, Sitchen, Pye, and the bible are all wrong? Where is YOUR proof they are wrong?

They are all wrong. I have been to Great Zimbabwe. Have you? He claims that the place could not have been made by the locals. Only a liar would made such an asinine claim. It is obvious a man made complex, from local materials, with locally available tools. Sitchin made up a hoax about a planet with impossible properties. Pye is a fraud with a skull that is human and has been shown to be just that.

Target foods is a laughable story that I personally have shown to be 100% wrong.

reply to post by stereologist

I showed that was a bald faced lie time and time again.

And everytime I call you out on this and ask that you prove this point by showing me several diets that explain experimentation, you run and hide.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

(excluding cross breeds, which never result in a sustainable species)

What about black ducks and mallards?

it was more "well, we have no idea how life could have occurred spontaneously, but we'll just skip that and get on with the rest" not the logic one uses when looking for what is actually true.

Are you saying we shouldn't study a subject unless we can study every aspect at once?
Are you saying we shouldn't attempt to break down research into workable units?

reply to post by stereologist

Here is the sort of nonsense posted by creationists. Evolution has been demonstrated. Witnessed means personally seeing. It is a typical creationist bald faced lie to state that it would have to be witnessed.

Thats just your excuse for saying you don't have proof, but you know it exists.

What I stated was that no out of sequence fossils have ever been found. That would falsify evolution. Trilobites and mammal fossils together would falsify evolution.

Connections in fossils should be rampant on this tiny rock, yet you search and search and just don't get a clue.

1. Zero evidence for Noah's flood

Sure, and what ever happened to the water in the grand cannyon? I live just 50 feet from evidence of a great flood where about 100 feet down and miles across is evidence of a water channel that is now just a few feet deep.

. The order of creation in the 2 genesis fairy tales is wrong

That is correct, soly because its about an abduction not a creation.

3. No evidence whatsoever for exodus

The history is all we have in a lot of these things, that in itself is not proof that they never happened.

These events did not happen. They are fairy tales from the bronze age.

It's easy to grasp what you have been taught, but it honeslty raises more questions then it does satisfy answers.

A false claim. You should learn a little about science to understand why you are wrong.

If evolution were predictable, we would be able to understand the purpose for changes, which we only claim to. In addition we would be able to know for sure whats happening and why.

This of course would disprove evolution because we would then know the actuall reason behind the changes.

You should learn a little about science to understand why you are wrong.

No one has ever proven or witnessed a species changing into another species, therefore, you believe in a religion.

You have to laugh at the ridiculous claims of creationists. The suggestion that people did not witness events before humans existed has any bearing on the issue is such a joke.

You also have to laugh at how we just popped into existance as humans one day, but have not one shred of shared lineage, no shared creations or inventions, no share language yet your certain we evolved .

reply to post by stereologist

Take a basic course in biology to learn why this makes no sense.

Everything is suppose to be in balance and have order. While you believe that any species is just suppose to eat whatever it can find. Common sense would prove you wrong. Species are suppose to have Target Food, anything less and you have a compramise in the quality of life. Life and the quality of life is apparent based on the fact that life is not only ongoing, but will fight to live. Not to be confused with the fact that everything here struggles to live because everything is out of balance.

False. Completely false. Evolution is a fact. The issue is how it happened. The change in the theory of HOW it happened is something science is designed to do. Science fixes its mistakes. Science glorifies those that find mistakes. Religion on the other hand is stuck with a bronze age fairy tale.

Of course what your totally missing is the fact that in this process, the only thing that has happned is evolution has become more illusive.

Every stage of evolution is illusive. We can't trace, predict, or identify what changes are going to happen next, yet we believe they are all part of the same process known as evolution.

Text

reply to post by stereologist

You're not the only closed minded person around. I've met hundreds at creationist events where I see people that also are unable to open their eyes. They are stuck with a dead beat story thousands of years old that makes no sense at all.

People find it hard to understand some things in the bible because most people fail to realize that its prefaced as a supernatural occurance.

Evolution is a fact. The mechanism is still up for debate. No matter how well the current theory works it will always be tested and retested and evaluated, because science is never complacent.

This is why I have pointed out over and over, that there is no proof that all and any changes are all part of the SAME process known as evolution. It's only assumed, a common problem among evolutionists.
There is no proof that speciation is the early stages of a species changing into another species because there is no proof that a species can change into another species.

That was not stated. Being illiterate about evolution can be fixed. For starters you need to learn what evolution is. Evolution is the observed change. It is not a force or a process or the imaginary god of religions. Evolution is the result of a process.

And this imaginary illusive process just so happens to be responsible for creating over a billion species? Right.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Pye is a fraud with a skull that is human and has been shown to be just that.

Repeating and believing in outdated biased results that confirm your bias, are we? He has not been shown to be a fraud. It has been shown that the MOTHER was human, due to mitochondrial DNA. But the nuclear DNA, which contains DNA from both parents, has been shown to be more different from humans than a frog.

I know you won't be convinced anyway, but whatever.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to [url= by itsthetooth[/url]

 

Pye is a fraud with a skull that is human and has been shown to be just that.

Repeating and believing in outdated biased results that confirm your bias, are we? He has not been shown to be a fraud. It has been shown that the MOTHER was human, due to mitochondrial DNA. But the nuclear DNA, which contains DNA from both parents, has been shown to be more different from humans than a frog.

I know you won't be convinced anyway, but whatever.

Yep the starchilds father was infact, Bigfoot.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shema

 

.The problem with the creationist stance is that it is demonstrably wrong. Take genesis. It contains 2 creation myths in it



Why do you presume a creationist has any belief whatsoever in Genesis? Sure, some do but a lot don't, they aren't that dumb.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by vasaga
No it hasn't. It has not been observed that heat flows from cold to hot. That is not the same as "observing that heat does not flow from cold to hot".
It's the difference between:
Not seeing you type on your keyboard, and seeing that you didn't type on the keyboard.
Or not seeing that your girlfriend was on the beach, and seeing that she was not on the beach.

They are two different things.And that's where you trip up, because you assume they are the same, and you make a bunch of fallacies from it.

I can't decide whether you're just too angry to make sense, you're attempting to change the subject or you're incredibly pedantic......I'll go with the latter...

I'm the one attempting to change the subject, after you've used the word evolution in different senses multiple times?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Yeah.. That works nice in theory, but all they'll do is say "humans evolved earlier than we thought"

Right, because the difference between 2 billion years and 2-4 hundred thousand years is negligible......

If it's two billion years, they'll just give it another name, or say the data must be wrong. Funny, how suddenly the argument 'fossils are rare' does not apply.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

By equating evolution to everything you've made it unfalsifiable, because to falsify it, you need to disprove everything. Nice going there. Thanks for showing us that evolution is unfalsifiable, and thus proving that it's unscientific.

Did you see that? oh no it just flew clean over your head...

See what?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

I find it funny how all your arguments regarding it not being falsifiable are regarding biological stuff, but now suddenly it encompasses everything.

I'll say it once more...the english word 'Evolution' doesn't solely refer to the process that creates bio-diversity, it also refers to the change over time, of anything.....

Then you've defined evolution to be unfalsifiable. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
It's great that people like you are attempting to learn new scientific words and concepts, but it's always best to walk before you disregard an entire field of science purely because it contradicts your chosen holy book/space ghost/world view.

Oh look. The typical well-poisoning, ad hominem.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Is it this singular theory you have issues with, and its just a coincidence that it contradicts your world view, or do you have an issue with any other scientific theories?

I have an issue with you people presenting yourselves as scientific while all you're doing is blind obedience.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to [url= by itsthetooth[/url]

 

Pye is a fraud with a skull that is human and has been shown to be just that.

Repeating and believing in outdated biased results that confirm your bias, are we? He has not been shown to be a fraud. It has been shown that the MOTHER was human, due to mitochondrial DNA. But the nuclear DNA, which contains DNA from both parents, has been shown to be more different from humans than a frog.

I know you won't be convinced anyway, but whatever.

Yep the starchilds father was infact, Bigfoot.

Yay. More appeal to ridicule. Just what we need, to have a sensible logical discussion.

reply to post by vasaga


Stereo !!!! I seriously get sick of defending Pyes claims to a bunch of people that run and hide when I tell them to back up their claims.

So I'm going to do you one better.

Star child

Above is a link where you can read and learn, and wallow in your own pitty. It contains ALL counts of tests being done and includes the reasons why more than one test was done to begin with.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So then by your own admission, evolution does NOT prove diversity?

As has been pointed out many many times in this thread you simply have no idea what science means by evolution. Pretending that evolution is your failed understanding of the idea simply continues to keep your closed mind in the dark.

It's pathetic that you think that man knows all and is all.

No one has made that claim.

Obviously the ant and anteater are an example and kelp and the abalone.

I've shown both of those claims to be wrong.