Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by AntiNWO
When are you evolutionists and creationists going to admit that the Ancient Alien theory answers all questions on both sides?

In a way, both theories are correct, but not in any way that has been popularized in western society.

Dinosaurs were wiped off of the Earth to allow primative man to flourish.
There is no "missing link" because our evolution took a quantum leap through artificially altered DNA.
"Gods" and "demons" are aliens and/or interdimensional beings competing for control of the earth and its people. We are fighting their proxy wars.

There is more evidence of ancient aliens throughout the world's cultures than the "popular" versions of both evolution and creation. But keep your eyes closed because it's too much to deal with.

A magic man who loves us unconditionally but is willing to torture us for all eternity for being naughty makes more sense?

A single creature out of the millions on Earth evolving exponentially more quickly over the rest more makes sense?

The truth is out there, as they say.

I have had thoughts like those before, like the world is a giant petri dish?

Originally posted by blockhead
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

First of all there is no fossils from 2 billion years ago. If the earth was around back then it was null & void and dark.
There wasn't animals roaming the planet back then. And yes, I have been force fed that we all came from a one celled amoeba, what a crock of dookie. I hold to my previous statement, no proof = didn't happen.

And to be fair, they should touch on all versions of creation. If the crazy evolutionary model is taught as fact, then all of the creation versions should be taught as fact as well...equal rights....

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by blockhead

But like you, until I am shown absolute proof of evolution, I will not believe it.

Why? What's so hard to believe about it?

Originally posted by Jahari
Can a evolutionist explain to me how the universe came into being please? I guess I just don't get either side of the argument. Science can't ignored the creator aspect when trying to explain life. Its just not scientific. Because its a possibility. Creationist can't just blindle believe in a man made religion because is FN crazy. You have to have both to truly explain life. Until then imo you will only come up with theories and fairytales.

Sure I would give it a try even though it doesn't have anything to do with evolution but before I do would the creator culture answer me this ( I have asked so many times before) who or what created your creator?

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by Tylerdurden1

 

Those people are not bullies, they are just logical.

Logic has NOTHING to do with it.

"Logical" people do not destroy a man's career because they questioned Darwinism...

"...if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”

“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over” Source

Look you can question it all you want. Just dont start you sentance with " God..." or "Intelligent design.." Im sure that is an automatic label of nutball.

reply to post by Tylerdurden1

I suppose if someone is going to be gullible enough to believe what mainstream academia says...

Believing Wikipedia would be just a minor step in the same direction.

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)

It is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence.

There's a reason Soros supports it. Because his vast minions can manipulate it. And manipulate it they do.

I encourage everybody to take a look at the wikimedia's own webpage:

Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board

Search the page for "soros" or "open society" and right there for all of us to see, three of them!

Melissa(Hagemann) manages the Open Access Initiative within the Information Program of the Open Society Institute (OSI)/Soros foundations.

Ethan(Zuckerman) also works with Open Society Institute's Information Program, along with Melissa Hagemann.

Trevor Neilson is a Partner in the Global Philanthropy Group , a company that advises philanthropists on the development and implementation of philanthropic strategies. Neilson formed DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) with Bill Gates, Bono and George Soros, served as a founding board member, and stays involved as a member of DATA's policy board.

There's also a fourth member of the wikimedia foundation who is from OSI. Seeing the following is what made me curious enough to look for this info. You can see that here:

Wall Space (MacKinnon Formerly of CNN, now works for Soros)

freerepublic.com...

Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia? ( George Soros )
www.freerepublic.com...

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

P.S. You're from Texas--isn't discussing evolution illegal there already?

edit on 8/13/2013 by ravenshadow13 because: (no reason given)

LOL one would think so eh! I had updated my last comment before I saw this. I saw the peppered moth study but just glanced through it. I will read it more thoroughly later this evening. Below was my comment:

So, you are stating that genetic traits that make up new species don't always go back to the original ancestor. That some new species are generated mid-stream so to speak, thus proving the evolution theory for all living things using Occam's Razor principle to pick the hypothesis to stick with. Bear with me, I am trying to grasp what you are wanting to prove. You must be a biologist or geneticist which is cool. I am not wanting to get into a hissing match over beliefs, I really want to know why and where the proof of evolution is... If I am missing your point toally please enlighten...

So there is no evolution, but there are virgin births, burning bushes that talk, and copper skinned/wooly haired zombies that look like Ted Nugent in all artist images?

Okay, if that's the one you're going to hang your hat on, know that you're wrong.

Know that there isn't a god, there wasn't a zombie, and know that man created God.

Derek

reply to post by Murgatroid


Philanthropy etymologically means "love of humanity" in the sense of caring for, nourishing, developing, and enhancing "what it is to be human" on both the benefactors' (by identifying and exercising their values in giving and volunteering) and beneficiaries' (by benefitting) parts. The most conventional modern definition is "private initiatives, for public good, focusing on quality of life"
Wiki.

One of those things is for philanthropists to do good in the world, whats wrong with that.
Who cares who owns that site? If facts are facts, who cares who presents them? As long as they are true. Many of the subjects you see on Wiki. have facts in them.

Where are the facts for intelligent design?

Originally posted by Viesczy
So there is no evolution, but there are virgin births, burning bushes that talk, and copper skinned/wooly haired zombies that look like Ted Nugent in all artist images?

Okay, if that's the one you're going to hang your hat on, know that you're wrong.

Know that there isn't a god, there wasn't a zombie, and know that man created God.

Derek

You don't have to be a jerk about what other people believe, either.

Oops I double clicked. Delete?

reply to post by Murgatroid


If you had done your research on Wikipedia at all, and tried to be seriously intelligent about your investigation, you would know how absolutely full of crap you are. I assure you that Wikipedia has no designs on the minds of the human race other than to educate them and promote education. But I think it's become abundantly clear that the only opinion you care about is an ignorant one that is aligned with your own.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The problem with evolution is that it is used to teach how life began

False.

Abiogenesis is the theory of how life began.



en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution is the theory of life’s diversity.


Please try to remember the difference.

edit on 12-8-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

What better explains human existence? Abiogenesis or evolution?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

The moment our little innocent and trusting children set foot into their educational system, they are indoctrinated with this crack pot theory.

As opposed to the highly evidence-based, finite faith that you would rather them be indoctrinated with?

In fact, Christianity is not allowed in schools yet we are forced to attend them if we can't pay for private schools.

Funny, my parents were the ones who could afford the private schools; the one I went to was Christian. We read the Bible every single day -- not a singl eperson who I am still in contact with from that school is still Christian. Want to know why? Because they read the whole book and it's nonsense.

No one is forcing you to listen to anyone who knocks on your door. You say, "No thank you" and close the door. Children don't have that option.

edit on 12-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

I work from my house and if I had people knock on my door and interrupt my schedule to preach bogus rhetoric they would technically be harassing me.

reply to post by 1nf1del


I'm happy to discuss this here:

DNA killed evolution

Originally posted by blockhead
LOL one would think so eh! I had updated my last comment before I saw this. I saw the peppered moth study but just glanced through it. I will read it more thoroughly later this evening. Below was my comment:

So, you are stating that genetic traits that make up new species don't always go back to the original ancestor. That some new species are generated mid-stream so to speak, thus proving the evolution theory for all living things using Occam's Razor principle to pick the hypothesis to stick with. Bear with me, I am trying to grasp what you are wanting to prove. You must be a biologist or geneticist which is cool. I am not wanting to get into a hissing match over beliefs, I really want to know why and where the proof of evolution is... If I am missing your point toally please enlighten...

I've been posting evidence in this thread all day, I'm sleepy, haha. If you have any questions on the peppered moth study, definitely let me know.

Well, how are you defining a species? Genetic traits don't make up a species. But I think I know what you mean. Genetic traits make one species different from another species. In most common usage, one species does not interbreed with another species--they can't create "viable offspring." This isn't the case 100% of the time, there are weird examples, and lots of definitions of what a "species" is, but this is generally true.

A new species isn't created mid-stream.

But I guess you're asking whether every single mutation/variation that exists could be proven as evidence of ancestry with any other species. Like, you could say a duck evolved directly from a turtle because it grew feathers and all of these things happened directly and voila, duck.

That's why I really recommend checking out some links about parsimony and phylogeny. I just posted some in the other thread... here you go... and yeah, parsimony, that's what I'm sayin', man.

Here's a pretty basic description of some of these concepts:
biology.unm.edu...

Here's a slightly more complex (but I think overall better) description--it's like a little course: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are a number of ways to calculate parsimony and these days it's often done by computers... a combination of gene probability stuff, and morphological traits, and whatever evidence you may have. The literature on which is the best way to go is pretty heady, but generally you do follow something similar to Occam's razor--you pick the cladogram with the least number of "steps." And the computer calculates it based on the most evidence that you have. But you can do it for yourself, for obvious traits. Gene sequences, tooth count, presence of a protein, shape of a digit, lots of things can be used as traits.

Here are some things to check out:
jmazzabiology.com...

www.radford.edu...

reply to post by Viesczy


Creationist=Christian
Your comment=Closed mind

You decide.

Originally posted by Viesczy
So there is no evolution, but there are virgin births, burning bushes that talk, and copper skinned/wooly haired zombies that look like Ted Nugent in all artist images?

Okay, if that's the one you're going to hang your hat on, know that you're wrong.

Know that there isn't a god, there wasn't a zombie, and know that man created God.

Derek

Derek, please tell me how you know with 100% certainty that there isn't a Creator, and that man created Him?

At times does it not feel like you can't escape thinking about the possibility of God?

Have you ever felt like something is seeking you? Calling you? Or, something initiating a seeking or calling in a deeper way (Spiritually)..Think about this - He created us with the intention that we would know Him. He has surrounded us with evidence of Himself and He keeps the question of His existence squarely before us.

That gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by CB328

Science and education are nothing but MASSIVE forms of mind control

So, the true motive comes out. As usual, religious people are calling science and education mind control because they undermine their ability to scam people with the true mind control- religion.

If there's no evolution, then why does the flu virus evolve every year?? Answer that question.

Okay say it with me A-DAP-TAY-SHUN, FFS can some of you please learn the difference between adaptation and evolution?

Originally posted by UnmitigatedDisaster
I do think atheism is a bad stance to take, since really we should be open the possibility of a creator, but there's no credible evidence to support creationism.

I'd agree, if most atheists were gnostic atheists (which they are not).

Most are agnostic atheists - a position which is open to 'the possibility of a creator', should solid evidence ever be produced for one.