Science against evolution

reply to post by colin42

A relationship is a relationship. The native Indian has interacted and understood their relationship with bears into pre history

And aside from ripping us to shreds what exactly do they get from the relationship?

reply to post by itsthetooth
No it means she has an ignorant neighbour who tries to make some off topic post at her expense and misfortune.

Putting animals into categories is what we do to make our understanding easier. Obviously still to complex for you to understand so I'll tell you again. Animals evolve.

Individuals do not evolve if they live long enough to breed they pass on any advantages that enabled them to do so,

Send my condolences to your neighbour. Not for her condition but for having such an uncaring 'person' living next door to her.

So again because it's not something you can perform, it can't possibly be real, because you are the one and only know it all swammi that can do anything right?

You make the claim magic exists. Show your evidence. You are the one acting like a swami.

At least I have documentation indicating that the supernatural is real, which is a lot more than you have right now of just your claims that it can't possibly exist because you can't do it. Poor man, you must feel cheated.

I do feel cheated. You again make claims that you refuse to show the evidence for.

And we are back to square one. Again you think that ANYONE should be able to perform supernatural acts.

I never asked you to perform magic. I asked you to show the evidence that backs your claims for it.

Are you seeing why your so blind at this point?

I certainly am not seeing your evidence that is for sure

I don't posses supernatural abilities any more than you do, get over it and move on with your life, but more importantly learn from it.

I have learned from it. You make claims that you cannot provide evidence for and expect to be taken seriously. YOU ARE NOT.

Yes someone did make the claim that our food evolves right along side with us, and changes as we do to fit our needs. This would obviously require intelligence.

Oh did they? More here say. Well many others have told you that a rat does not go to sleep and wake up as a cat. That your ‘wakes up with nothing to eat’ shows your complete ignorance of the subject you claim to be able to disprove. Another thing you offer no evidence of.

It's a metaphor, I was trying to pick something easy hoping you would understand.

Your the one that has displayed difficulties in understanding. So give me the complex version. What part of you is recycled?

Naturally means they don't have to go out of their way and adapt by making tools to allow them the ability to farm, they are allready instilled with the needed tools and capacity to perform this task, therefore its natural to them, not to us, get it!

Yep. As I said. You have no idea what natural means.

If you have to reflect back, then you missed the whole point. Going forward, if we have to modify our food to our needs, then its obviously because the food does not fit our needs as is. In other words its not our food.

So you can’t answer the question without putting light on your lie.

Mankind has farmed for thousands of years without machinery or GM. Now address the question. You claim our MODERN techniques mean farming for us is not natural. Explain away the 6000 years that preceded it.

Using machines to plant and harvest is NOT natural.

Again you display complete ignorance of the meaning of natural.

reply to post by stereologist

When you get to high school take a basic course in biology and learn.

Did that done that 25 years ago, and our biology books never proved that a species can change into another species.

Again the laughable claim that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a global flood. Add a basic geology course and learn. The strong evidence against the myth in the bible has been known about since the 1500s.

Thats a hell of a lot of water to displace, your not suggesting we had a heavy rain are you? Like maybe for 40 days and 40 nights?

So you think that making a claim more absurd than the 2 differing myths in genesis is anything more than a knee slapping joke? I guess you skipped over the part where I pointed out that the myths of genesis do not match the fossil record.

There happens to be a multituide of points that all point to an abduction having occured. The problem is that if you don't have 30 years under your belt of studying the supernatural, you would miss it and think its just a joke.

Add an intro course of archaeology to your list and learn. Most of the human record is not history.

Which as far as evolutionists are concearned is proof we evolved, while I'm saying its proof we just showed up here.

The idea that the bible was reflected in archaeological evidence was what I was taught. Now I know better. I learned something. Can you do the same?

Either way you look at it, its history.

Again, take a course in biology when you get to high school. Learn why your questions are peppered with mistakes like using the word purpose.

I have taken basic biology and passed btw. There is still no proof that a species can change into another species.

The word purpose is used because there are to many things that prove intent. Evolution proves intent, Target food proves intent.

You've been given many examples in this thread. Only close minded people are unable to understand the material presented. Again, you have no idea what distinguishes a religion from science.

Well it would appear you to be the one that is faced more with the lable than me. You believe in something that has never been witnessed much less proven, so its a faith.

Again, no one claims that "we" as in humans popped into existence except for creationists. No scientists make that claim.

That is because of two obviousl reasons, first is that most scientists don't even know about intervention and most scientists refuse to accept the terms of the supernatural, which is not bound to the terms of science.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You could argue that using our hands is, but I would demand proof that our hands were specifically designed for this purpose, then you would have to explain away everything else you use your hands for.

You are not in a position to demand proof. Something you refuse to do.

We use our hands to interact with the world around us. You cannot even wipe your backside without them. You want proof then perform an experiment. Put on a pair of boxing gloves doe a day then report back your findings.

The bottom line is there is no proof that our hands are specifically designed for farming

Your arguments continuously dive into the absurd. Our hands do not have to be designed to farm so your pathetic straw man reflects on the dishonest arguments you try to make. I mean you cannot be that stupid can you?

and if they are, why do we choose to make machines to do the work?

We choose to make tools because we can. Why would you take the car to travel 10 miles when you could walk. Answer that and you answer your own question.

GMO's are not natural

But to produce GMO seeds you must use nature

Watering is not natural

Of course it is. As I have already told you. It may be considered artificial but it is no against nature, ergo it is natural.

plowing is not natural

Of course it is. We provide the conditions best suited to the crop. Natural conditions.

if it were, it would occur on its own

It does just not where we want it and how we want it.

fertilizer is not natural

The most incorrect statement yet. Fertiliser is a wide range. Many fertilisers are totally natural and are produced from the actions of bacteria.

if it was it would get there on its own.

It does. Fallen leaves. Decaying vegetation. The action of ants, worms. Do you even go outside your darkened room?

Your just about 20 steps away from explaining how farming is natural to huamns, and you won't make it past one.

Past them all with no problem so now all you have is denial.

It might have started out natural but the fact is we moved it to unnatural.

If it started out natural then farming is something we do NATURALLY

Ok but this will only be about the umteenth time I have explained this.

I always know when you are losing. The old link to google front page ploy. Let me give you the benefit of doubt. You claimed a page or two ago you gave many definitions from many sources. This one that you insist on using takes me to the google front page. Try another or prove yourself to be the liar I take you for.

Anytime humankind is involved with making or causing, its not natural.

Your cherry picked definition does not say that.

Not caused or made by man is what it says. We don’t cause the crop to grow. We provide the best conditions for it to grow. Nothing a farmer does to produce his crop is against nature.

Well yes humans are GMO's but thats not because they had health and such in mind. Their desires were a little more benefit driven.

Show your proof

We are doing the most damage to this planet but all the life here has also knocked it off balance.

Nope. You specifically claimed that we were solely to blame. You seem to have forgotten that your version of balance does not exist.

Please show the evidence of a time when this planet was in balance.

reply to post by colin42

Yeah right and you again show a complete inability to understand what a relationship is.

Where I failed here is I didn't use the word amicable. Nothing can survive in a balance when there is this type of relationship.

Here you prove me right again. You still claim it was a balanced system because that is what the SEALED GLOBE is sold as.

Explains why you believe what pye tells you. You want to believe so it must be so. The denial is all yours

Well no I was actually going more by the detailed documents of all of the labs and the peer reviews as well. What were you going by?

You would be wrong again, and maybe you should contact the maker of the globe and let them know you have personally determined that these globes are NOT balanced. .

Nope. You supplied links to google front page and cherry picked what you pasted. You also refused to accept any definition other than that one because the all showed you were purposely avoiding the real definition.

I coppied the information just as I read it. There is no excuse for your blindness, your just upset that the definition doesn't fit with YOUR needs. Did it ever occur to you that it might be because you are WRONG! We already played the definition game and I reposted many times ALL variations of the definition and they all say you are WRONG!

Thats called reflected guilt and your full of it.

The only thing reflecting is your response to the definition that has allready proven you wrong. over and over again.

Our hands evolved and we have used them for nearly every action we make. You have to be the most self deluded person that ever lived. Is there no depth of ignorance you wont stoop to to maintian your lies?

But they haven't, they have stayed the same, the only thing that has changed is the application to use them to make better tools that produce better than our hands themselves can produce.

reply to post by stereologist

No idea where you came up with that.

Each planet is formed with balance and harmony. I know this to be fact because its the ONLY way a planet can survive. As proof, our planet right now is dying. We are in our 6th mass extinction, and this is because of all of the things that were brought to earth, including humans, that do not belong here. So now we are looking at a loss of 99% of all life as we know it. Only the apex preditors will live on. Whoever brought all this life to earth failed or didn't care about the fact that you can't bring in species or remove species, it knockes the balance off and there is mass death.

Evolution assumes that the status quo is the correct way, and that its perfectly normal to have all this death, but thats wrong. What is the point of all of this life if its just going to die a premature death or get weeded out by the other life? So again, the ONLY way that a planet can be structured is if everything is taken into account and made in a balance.

False. That is not common sense.

Well its common sense to me, because I have looked at dozens of diets. Here is an example. The common squirrel on wiki.

squirrel wiki

In this link you will find two diets. The first is his main diet of what he normally eats...

Feeding
Squirrel eating a peanut
The Indian palm squirrel is the most common type of squirrel found in India.Squirrels cannot digest cellulose, so must rely on foods rich in protein, carbohydrates, and fats. In temperate regions, early spring is the hardest time of year for squirrels, because buried nuts begin to sprout and are no longer available for the squirrel to eat, and new food sources have not become available yet. During these times, squirrels rely heavily on the buds of trees. Squirrels' diets consist primarily of a wide variety of plants, including nuts, seeds, conifer cones, fruits, fungi and green vegetation. However, some squirrels also consume meat, especially when faced with hunger.[6] Squirrels have been known to eat insects, eggs, small birds, young snakes and smaller rodents. Indeed, some tropical species have shifted almost entirely to a diet of insects.[11]

Predatory behavior has been noted by various species of ground squirrels, particularly the thirteen-lined ground squirrel.[12] For example, Bailey, a scientist in the 1920s, observed a thirteen-lined ground squirrel preying upon a young chicken.[13] Wistrand reported seeing this same species eating a freshly killed snake.[14] Whitaker examined the stomachs of 139 thirteen-lined ground squirrels and found bird flesh in four of the specimens and the remains of a short-tailed shrew in one;[15] Bradley, examining white-tailed antelope squirrels' stomachs, found at least 10% of his 609 specimens' stomachs contained some type of vertebrate, mostly lizards and rodents.[16] Morgart observed a white-tailed antelope squirrel capturing and eating a silky pocket mouse.[17]

The squirrel is said to be an herbivore but when those things are out of reach he picks up insects and other wild life.

A question is presented here, as to why did he just not choose the wild life and insects first, and everyone would agree that it's a personal choice, but they are WRONG! Choice would indicate a personal preference in the choices but here we have a problem because they ALL choose the same choice as a species. The choice of meat when faced with hunger is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Squirrel has made a personal choice to be an herbavore first and an omnivor second. If you think about this and give it some serious thought, you will realize there is something very wrong here. Why not just be an omnivor all the time or even a carnivore all the time. The obvious comes into play again that it's a matter of personal choice. But how can you claim its personal when they are all making the exact same choice as a species as a whole? You can't. It's obviously not a personal choice.

All species have an instinct about what they are suppose to be eating. This is Target Food. When its available they will eat only the target food and be perfectly healthy

...

reply to post by itsthetooth

You claimed every animal knows what to eat because they are from here. Now you claim they know what was brought along with them.

If their food was brought with them, then yes, they have food otherwise no.

Nope. You claimed only humans and a few other animals were brought here. Now you say all life was brought here, that is a game changer.

You cannot in anyway make an argument for missing target food as you have no way of knowing what it was originally. Your argument has failed and that is why you have lied fo the last year when trying to promote this stupid fantasy.

More like as far as they are concearned. Animals are not sentient beings, duh.

Well as far as anyone is concerned we consider ourselves to be from here. Are we not sentient beings duh

So you have had to adapt your story again. I didnt think your credability could go any lower but you are now in negative numbers.

You have never provided diddley about proving we have a relationship with wolves.

You just cannot resist it can you. You know full well I spent pages linking you to articles and studies so again your lies show that even in your self deluded fog you know you are wrong

You do however have your opinion and did manage to find a few sites making opinionated claims of such but they didn't outweigh the doznes of sites I sent to you proving you WRONG! Including a video about a wolf attack on a human.

You dont remember the video that explained mans relationship with the wolf from the very beginning and up to the modern day. The many wiki and scientific sites that explained it fully. You are a sad individual.

You must be suffering from selective amnesia, I gave links about wolf attacks on humans.

Nope that is your problem.

I can find links on everything from microbes to man himself on attacks on humans. We were meant to be talking about the relationship between wolf and man. You show no ability to learn and no credibility at all.

How wolves became mans best friend

I also refer you back to the thread where all this and more was spoon fed you and you denied everything you were given.

You obviously have no concept of what a relationship is. One of many things you seem unable to grasp

First of all its illegal and you could get hurt bad.

And here you display your tragic inability to read. It is not illegal to own a dog. A sub species of the Gray wolf and millions of people do

And aside from ripping us to shreds what exactly do they get from the relationship?

A knowledge of nature that you obviously cannot grasp.

I see no improvement in your lame arguments. I don’t intend to waste anymore time than a snowy day has dictated. You are one sad, deluded guy and intent on remaining so

reply to post by stereologist

False. That is not common sense.

It's important to realize that this personal choice species are making about food, has a lot more behind it. Some people would say its instinct and I will go with that, but who programmed the instinct, evolution certainly didn't. So it appears that species have the ideal food in mind, and they allready know what it is.

We know this to be fact because there is never an experimental stage where they are first trying this food and then another only to end up all agreeing on the exact same food as a whole. It's not only that they seem to know what to eat, but that they also allready know what not to eat. I have challenged this by telling others to please present me with proof of any experimental stage and no one has come foward. Not to be confused with starvation. Nope they know exactly what they are looking for. However if that food did not come here just like the bible says that all things were brought here, doesn't mean food for all of these were brought here as well. Especially for humans, it says that nothing is from our home, which means our target food is not here.

Anyhow. all species choose the same food, and they don't hold meetins or advertise what to eat. On a rare occasion a species will teach the young what to eat, but its rare and not all species do this.

So when you see a diet like the squirrel has, where they are calling him an herbivore, he is in phase one of hunger. You can quickly spot this because the species is eating just about everything in a food group. Phase two of hunger is where he picks up a new food group, insects and rodents, this is because the Target food and the phase one diet are not available. Phase three is total starvation, you will see parakeets eating poo of the bottom of the cage, animals eating rocks and dirt, they are starving..

There is no such thing as target foods. Provide even 1 piece of evidence.

It's allready observed, look up any diet and post it on here and I will tell you what phase its in for Target Food.

It doesn't have to be from wiki.
There is no such thing as an experimental stage.

When you get to high school take an intro to biology course and learn.

I did better than that, I went straight for college level info. Study up on ADHD and how they have found the DNA to be changed on victims. They also know what causes it, its when somone is subject to lead, or smoking ciggeretts can do that lead too.
So are you trying to tell me that a smoking pregnant woman is altering evolution?

I actually know of no one that does not know that the bible is a story involving magic. The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever for exodus, Noah's flood, or genesis. These are all myths unrelated to reality. They were good stories to tell in the bronze age. They are all fairy tales.

That is just your way to trying to understand what has taken place. I assure you there is a big difference between magic and the supernatural.

supernatural

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun
Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms
preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

As you can see there is no mention of the word magic in the definition of supernatural. It might be your way of trying to understand, but what your missing is the fact that magic would be something bound to the natural laws of science and is objective to OUR understanding. Supernatural things are NOT bound to these limitations.

Take an intro biology course and learn.

There is still no proof that all changes are all part of the same process, its just a man made idea.

Evolution is evidenced by the fossil record, which shows many more than the 40 to 50 million that exist today.

So its created over a billion species, but its not a creator.

So you post a link to Pye and claim his lies are the truth. Like I stated Pye is a liar. He continues to lie. He lies just like all of the frauds that made money off of 2012.

Two independent tests show that Pye is a liar.

So I guess all of the labs and those involved are all liars too. and all of the peer reviews that were in the workings was all a lie too. What exactly are you basing this on?

Again you show that you do not understand the meaning of evolution as used by science. It certainly isn

reply to post by stereologist

Again you show that you do not understand the meaning of evolution as used by science. It certainly isn't isn't the weird usage you've chosen.

I haven't been struck by the evolution bug if thats what you mean. There is nothing weird about believing that something that has created over a billion species has intent. Look at it this way, if your sister slapped you hard in the face, and backed off and said it was just an accident, you might believe her, but when she goes and does it a billion times could it possibly be an accident, I don't think so.

The onus is on Pye and he has shown nothing. I already posted the strong evidence against it being anything other than human. Here we go again to the close minded that believe in the lies posted by Pye.

Yes Pye has had a rough time with this skull. Wiki as an example took it upon themselves to note the skull as a human skull based on the fact that simply had human mtDNA. The problem is that this skull appears to be the product of a zygote, which can make it look totally human at first glance. A proper understanding, and you will learn that even today we zygote for people that want to carry someone elses child. Of course we are ALWAYS staying within the human species when doing this, but you don't have to. Different species can be zygoted. The nuclear DNA from this skull proves that it's only about 50% human. There are nucleiotides that do not match up in the human data base, and I don't mean they are just off, they are WAY off. Like someone recently said a frog has closer matches in some cases.

You seriously need to read up on all of the lab reports and see for yourself why he had it retested to begin with. The old primer techinique will only verify if human data is present, it can't tell you an unknown like they can now reviel today. We don't have alien DNA listed in our NIH data base so if it is alien we need so see the full details of why. There is detailed info including the names of the lab technicians as well as peer reviews.

star child

Clueless comments not connected to reality. I already have shown that 100% of your claims were wrong

Well then congratulations, YOUR the FIRST and I must have missed it.

Another bald-faced lie. I've shown that every animal you have claimed has a limited diet is wrong. That includes your failure with the abalone.

I'm not aware of anyting you have commented about the abalone, please share.

Oh for f***'s sake....
For the nth time...
Evolution IS NOT A THING THAT DOES STUFF.
Evolution is a continuous dynamic PROCESS.
Photosynthesis IS NOT A THING THAT DOES STUFF
Photosynthesis is a biological PROCESS

I have no need for a foreign sentient will to understand those processes. The collective sentience of my equals suffice.


Modern Science DOES NOT meddle in the [philosophical why].
Modern Science cares about the HOW.

If you challenge Science with a Non-science subject you'll never get a sensible answer...

HOW life, as a whole, develops thru time and space is covered by science.
The WHY issue is debated by both philosophical and metaphysical thinkers.

reply to post by itsthetooth

My neighbor is no longer able to produce children and the doctors have ruled out everything they know of that can cause this. Does that mean she has evolved

This just shows that you zero understanding of anything related to the scientific issue of evolution.

At least I have documentation indicating that the supernatural is real, which is a lot more than you have right now of just your claims that it can't possibly exist because you can't do it. Poor man, you must feel cheated.

Another obvious falsehood.

Yes someone did make the claim that our food evolves right along side with us, and changes as we do to fit our needs. This would obviously require intelligence.

Please tell us, who made that claim?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Did that done that 25 years ago, and our biology books never proved that a species can change into another species.

Clearly, you need to take a course in biology. You have consistently been wrong in understanding even the basics of biology. Learn the meaning of simple terms such as evolution and specie.

Thats a hell of a lot of water to displace, your not suggesting we had a heavy rain are you? Like maybe for 40 days and 40 nights?

Again the laughable claim that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a global flood. Add a basic geology course and learn. The strong evidence against the myth in the bible has been known about since the 1500s.

Yes, for 500 years people have openly known that the fairy tales of the bible are just fairy tales.

There happens to be a multituide of points that all point to an abduction having occured. The problem is that if you don't have 30 years under your belt of studying the supernatural, you would miss it and think its just a joke.

There are 2 incorrect myths in genesis. Abduction is ludicrous. Are you proposing that to make the bible look better? It really matters little how long you've spent learning fairy tales. They are still not true.

Either way you look at it, its history.

False. The bible is not history. It does not relate what happened. It's fiction.

Add an English course to your schedule.

That is because of two obviousl reasons, first is that most scientists don't even know about intervention and most scientists refuse to accept the terms of the supernatural, which is not bound to the terms of science.

You are correct that scientists avoid fiction and lies in their work. They avoid fairy tale explanations and the illogical.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Each planet is formed with balance and harmony

Another falsehood.

I know this to be fact because its the ONLY way a planet can survive. As proof, our planet right now is dying.

Another silly claim from someone pushing a lie called target foods.

So now we are looking at a loss of 99% of all life as we know it.

More unsubstantiated claims. Which orifice was this number pulled from?

Only the apex preditors will live on.

The top predators do not live through extinctions.

Only the apex preditors will live on.

Another falsehood about extinction. I am amazed at ow many falsehoods can be tossed out by someone.

Well its common sense to me, because I have looked at dozens of diets. Here is an example. The common squirrel on wiki.

With all of the mistakes being made here on a wide range of subjects I can believe that you think something that wrong is common sense.

Thanks for demonstrating that squirrels do not support your silly claim of target foods. Good job showing that target foods is poppycock.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's important to realize that this personal choice species are making about food, has a lot more behind it. Some people would say its instinct and I will go with that, but who programmed the instinct, evolution certainly didn't. So it appears that species have the ideal food in mind, and they allready know what it is.

Take an intro class in biology.

We know this to be fact because there is never an experimental stage where they are first trying this food and then another only to end up all agreeing on the exact same food as a whole. It's not only that they seem to know what to eat, but that they also allready know what not to eat.

Animals experiment all of the time. Not all members eat the same food. You just showed that squirrels do not eat all of the same food.

Anyhow. all species choose the same food, and they don't hold meetins or advertise what to eat. On a rare occasion a species will teach the young what to eat, but its rare and not all species do this.

You just proved yourself wrong with the case of squirrels.

It's allready observed, look up any diet and post it on here and I will tell you what phase its in for Target Food.

It doesn't have to be from wiki.
There is no such thing as an experimental stage.

You've disproved yourself with squirrels. No need to continue being foolish.

So are you trying to tell me that a smoking pregnant woman is altering evolution?

This statement makes it clear that this was a lie: " I went straight for college level info"

but what your missing is the fact that magic would be something bound to the natural laws of science and is objective to OUR understanding.

You have no idea how foolish this looks, do you? There is no evidence for supernatural and magic is certainly supernatural.

So its created over a billion species, but its not a creator.

Again, you need to take a basic biology course and fix some very basic issues.

[quote[So I guess all of the labs and those involved are all liars too. and all of the peer reviews that were in the workings was all a lie too. What exactly are you basing this on?
I already posted the evidence that Pye is a liar. No amount of unsubstantiated whining on your part counters that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I haven't been struck by the evolution bug if thats what you mean.

No. I thought I was being quite clear that you have no idea what is meant by evolution. You're absolutely clueless and should take an intro biology course.

There is nothing weird about believing that something that has created over a billion species has intent.

Science does not believe that. You are free to have your own definition, but do not confuse that with what science does.

Look at it this way, if your sister slapped you hard in the face, and backed off and said it was just an accident, you might believe her, but when she goes and does it a billion times could it possibly be an accident, I don't think so.

That has no bearing on the discussion. If you think it has some bearing then you really need to take a biology course when you get to high school.

The starchild skull has been shown to be 100% human. You are misrepresenting the wikipedia article. Nowhere does it state that only 50% of the DNA was human. The DNA showed both an X and a Y chromosome. That's human and human.

You seriously need to read up on all of the lab reports and see for yourself why he had it retested to begin with. The old primer techinique will only verify if human data is present, it can't tell you an unknown like they can now reviel today. We don't have alien DNA listed in our NIH data base so if it is alien we need so see the full details of why. There is detailed info including the names of the lab technicians as well as peer reviews.

There are those that will accept the idiocy from people like Pye without a second thought. They do this to buck anything they see as authority. They come up with stupendously nonsensical ideas like target foods. Further studies hope to find out why people do this although it appears to be connected to a refusal to learn rather than an inability to learn.

I'm not aware of anyting you have commented about the abalone, please share.

If you don't read the posts showing how completely wrong you are then how are you ever going to learn.

I have already posted how you were wrong about abalone. In the past I showed you were wrong about deer, squirrels, anteaters, and other life on Earth.

Nope. To be fair the theory of evolution describes how life has evolved evident in the diversity we see today and in the fossil record

yes, and the reason the origin of life is left out is because no means of life coming from non-life has ever been demonstrated.

Nope. It was based on observations in the field. Experiments and evidence.

and all of them wrong. darwins finches? yeah, they can all still interbreed. no new species.

The information you refer to after this rather uninformed statement above means you need to provide the link that you go on to refer too.

here is the paper that goes over the original research done by evolutionists on mutation rates. frankly, i'm ashamed that "scientists" would continue to propagate such a theory, but anything to deny the existence of a creator

the article isn't long, and at the bottom it links to all of the original research papers cited. this is the end game for evolution. it's simply impossible, as i've said. i'm done with this topic, because invariably you will deny the truth to the very end.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

yes, and the reason the origin of life is left out is because no means of life coming from non-life has ever been demonstrated.

No Bob. Evolution describes how we have the diversity we see today and in the fossil record.

You, I and everyone else in this world are free to speculate on how life began because no one knows and until proof is found your guess is as valid as anyone else’s.

Nope. It was based on observations in the field, experiments and evidence.

and all of them wrong. darwins finches? yeah, they can all still interbreed. no new species.

Are you aware how long ago Darwin presented his theory?

Are you unaware that the theory has moved on since then?

Not all finches can breed and produce viable young. The offspring from these couplings are called mules for a reason. Darwin used finches to demonstrate how the environment of each finch shaped the birds over time.

Are you saying that in the last 150 plus years all the observations experiments and evidence is wrong? Do you really believe this is a 150 year old conspiracy?

here is the paper that goes over the original research done by evolutionists on mutation rates. frankly, i'm ashamed that "scientists" would continue to propagate such a theory, but anything to deny the existence of a creator

Looks promising. The title being 'Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates'

You forget to mention this is from creationdigest.com. These are really unbiased and reliable sites ....... not.

The author of the article (not a paper) is Fred Williams A creationist minister and an engineer. So no bias there then and no qualifactions in the field of evolution either.

So I am meant to accept his babble and figures he plucks from thin air whilst ridiculing the scientists that he claims have done just that.

I am to accept this engineering creationist minister who gives presentations (at very reasonable rates no doubt) over pier reviewed papers.

What reason do I have to believe he is the only one telling the truth and all the real scientists are liars and have got together to promote a lie even a communications engineer can see through?

As usual with this type his whole focus is on humans in the hope he can prove that man is some special creation of an absent god.

Here I believe is the article Williams s attempting to debunk

Well first difference is they tell you how they got the figures they used.

I will not claim to have read the paper as unlike Fred they go into great detail on their sources, how they arrived at the data they used and the results so it will take time that I do not have today to do so and I can’t promise I will understand it anyway as like Fred I am just an engineer.

Let me give you my reply so far. I have researched the source you provided and the resource the article attacks. The credibility of the authors and I have to say it does not look good for Fred Williams but I will get back to you.

BTW did you read the article Fred Williams is trying to discredit before you became so disgusted with scientists?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Can anyone actually show me where the results are bunk? If it's not proper science and fabricated, there must be a real reason in the data itself, rather than throwing out arguments like 'he's not supported by the masses', 'he's a fraud' and so on. Why is no one showing that? Isn't that what science is supposed to be about? Why is it that when something controversial pops up, suddenly there are a list of excuses as to why we must not look at the data itself?

Its not a case of whether the language he is using is correct and that the results are theoreticaly possible, It's that the only other test made suggested that both parents were human, and Pye has refused to release samples for any further independent testing. He still makes the claims of an alien father and expects the scientific community to accept his findings, and bear in mind, he still hasn't identified the lab/technicians that carried out the test. (actually, I don't think he expected anything from the scientific community, i think he expected thousands on non-scientist to buy his book)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Anyway, its time for the reveal........I can tell you know that i was one of those lab technicians. Stunned eh! The samples that we received were heavily, and I mean heavily contaminated. There was a variety of human DNA fragments recovered as well as plant, bacteria, and other unidentified scraps. The largest recoverable samples clearly showed the mtDNA to be of primate origin. We refered to them as primate as the match to human was close enough to be primate, but out enough to not be human. As you are probably aware, the female found with the child was not the mother, possible a nurse, but thats just guess work.

The nuclear DNA had both X and Y chromosomes suggesting that both the father and the mother were human however, further testing showed remarkable differences in what we would refer to as human type DNA.

Test are still on going, although at a much reduced rate and in total secrecy (most of us do this work in secret, at our place of work, outside normal hours) and the current thinking is that the startchilds father was actually a hybrid himself and that the physical and genetic anomalies apparent in the skull are due to a genetic throw back. We believe that the father was one of many hybrids (possibly interbreeding experiments with the alien race) and that these hybrids are still among us.

Our research has shifted slightly. While most of the team are working on the complete sequencing of the star child dna, a small sub-group are curently checking the DNA databases world wide looking to identify population groups that have fragments ofthe unusual sequences first identified in the starchild skull.

We are close.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

GMO's are not natural

But to produce GMO seeds you must use nature

Hmm, interesting...tell me colin, in order to produce these "GMO seeds". Surely you'd have to have some sort of understanding about biology, heritability and such.

If only there were some sort of theory...something based on observations of the natural world that we could apply. It would have to be something pretty much set in stone...you know, sort've predictable.

Nope, lost me. I cant think of any scientific theory that would be useful to me to enable me to breed stronger, more decease resistant crops

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

GMO's are not natural

But to produce GMO seeds you must use nature

Hmm, interesting...tell me colin, in order to produce these "GMO seeds". Surely you'd have to have some sort of understanding about biology, heritability and such.

If only there were some sort of theory...something based on observations of the natural world that we could apply. It would have to be something pretty much set in stone...you know, sort've predictable.

Nope, lost me. I cant think of any scientific theory that would be useful to me to enable me to breed stronger, more decease resistant crops



Have you thought about using magic?

The chant could be 'Izzy Whizzy Lets get a corn fishy'.