# Evolution. Pfffft



## Weatherman2020

Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
*


*

Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.


----------



## ScienceRocks

At least there's real evidence for evolution! You have no evidence for what you believe in....

God could of just as easily done things through evolution...So it doesn't disprove our lord.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Matthew said:


> At least there's real evidence for evolution! You have no evidence for what you believe in....
> 
> God could of just as easily done things through evolution...So it doesn't disprove our lord.


Any day they will find the evidence!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Weatherman2020 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there's real evidence for evolution! You have no evidence for what you believe in....
> 
> God could of just as easily done things through evolution...So it doesn't disprove our lord.
> 
> 
> 
> Any day they will find the evidence!
Click to expand...



Yeah ... like a 2000 year old novel, myths, legends, written about some dude who probably didn't exist and his invisible daddy who raped his unmarried, virgin mom, deserted her, left his kid to be raised by an itinerant carpenter and then came back and killed the kid.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Luddly Neddite said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there's real evidence for evolution! You have no evidence for what you believe in....
> 
> God could of just as easily done things through evolution...So it doesn't disprove our lord.
> 
> 
> 
> Any day they will find the evidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... like a 2000 year old novel, myths, legends, written about some dude who probably didn't exist and his invisible daddy who raped his unmarried, virgin mom, deserted her, left his kid to be raised by an itinerant carpenter and then came back and killed the kid.
> 
> View attachment 115745
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741



Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.


----------



## Toro

Yes, "Creationism"

lol



Mmmm, fish


----------



## BlackFlag

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Rocks

Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Old Rocks said:


> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.




Weatherman2020 is a goddamn joke. The guy attacks a theory that is backed by tons of evidence and replaces it with his non-backed beliefs...

I'd be sad if I was him.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

BlackFlag said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Apparently no taxpayer money was used  to pay for that bread and fish


----------



## BlackFlag

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently no taxpayer money was used  to pay for that bread and fish
Click to expand...


----------



## RWNJ

Matthew said:


> At least there's real evidence for evolution! You have no evidence for what you believe in....
> 
> God could of just as easily done things through evolution...So it doesn't disprove our lord.


There is no scientific evidence for evolution.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.


Except that transitional fossils should outnumber the known fossils by millions to one.

Tell you what. Since you think random changes in an extremely complex system leads to improvement, go randomly change a few lines of code in your Windows 10 software and let us know how much more improved it is.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that transitional fossils should outnumber the known fossils by millions to one..
Click to expand...


According to the guy who believes that there is a big fairy in the sky who created everything.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that transitional fossils should outnumber the known fossils by millions to one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the guy who believes that there is a big fairy in the sky who created everything.
Click to expand...

Poor baby needs to deflect.
Well according to the moron moderators, the science topic is open to all flamers and off topic posts.
Let's play deflect.
So when did you stop having sex with your grandmother?


----------



## Weatherman2020

The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.

Thank you moderators.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that transitional fossils should outnumber the known fossils by millions to one.
> 
> Tell you what. Since you think random changes in an extremely complex system leads to improvement, go randomly change a few lines of code in your Windows 10 software and let us know how much more improved it is.
Click to expand...

*Silly ass, we see transitional fossil all the time. *





Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.

But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of _Hyracotherium_, otherwise known as _Eohippus_, became the single-toed foot of _Equus_. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.

*Many, many others. You are just repeating the standard creationist lie.*


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that transitional fossils should outnumber the known fossils by millions to one.
> 
> Tell you what. Since you think random changes in an extremely complex system leads to improvement, go randomly change a few lines of code in your Windows 10 software and let us know how much more improved it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Silly ass, we see transitional fossil all the time. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
> 
> But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of _Hyracotherium_, otherwise known as _Eohippus_, became the single-toed foot of _Equus_. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.
> 
> As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.
> 
> *Many, many others. You are just repeating the standard creationist lie.*
Click to expand...

Oh, so suddenly fully developed limbs and toes appear out of nowhere.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BlackFlag said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

BlackFlag said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently no taxpayer money was used  to pay for that bread and fish
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day teach him to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.


----------



## BlackFlag

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently no taxpayer money was used  to pay for that bread and fish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day teach him to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Gut funding for fishing teachers while attacking the merit of their profession and stop feeding people = lots of people die and turn to crime to steal _your _fish


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that transitional fossils should outnumber the known fossils by millions to one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the guy who believes that there is a big fairy in the sky who created everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor baby needs to deflect.
> Well according to the moron moderators, the science topic is open to all flamers and off topic posts.
> Let's play deflect.
> So when did you stop having sex with your grandmother?
Click to expand...


Why won't you stop kicking puppies?

You claim- with no substantiation that 'transitional fossils should outnumber known fossils by millions to one- you also believe that there is a fairy in the sky who created everything.

Both are based upon your beliefs- not facts.

As substantial as this picture of Jesus demonstrating evolution


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.



Science haters can piss in their faces all day, promoting that their fairy in the sky created everything with a big 'poof'.

It does not change the fact that evolution is the only theory that matches the known science for how the organisms in the world today are the organisms that they are today.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science haters can piss in their faces all day, promoting that their fairy in the sky created everything with a big 'poof'.
> 
> It does not change the fact that evolution is the only theory that matches the known science for how the organisms in the world today are the organisms that they are today.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel so threatened?


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science haters can piss in their faces all day, promoting that their fairy in the sky created everything with a big 'poof'.
> 
> It does not change the fact that evolution is the only theory that matches the known science for how the organisms in the world today are the organisms that they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened?
Click to expand...


Why do you feel so threatened?

Remember- I am no the one starting threads on Coelacanth- that is you feeling threatened because the theory of evolution matches existing evidence and the big fairy in the sky creating tilapia and dinosaurs and butterflies all the same does not.


----------



## RWNJ

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science haters can piss in their faces all day, promoting that their fairy in the sky created everything with a big 'poof'.
> 
> It does not change the fact that evolution is the only theory that matches the known science for how the organisms in the world today are the organisms that they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened?
> 
> Remember- I am no the one starting threads on Coelacanth- that is you feeling threatened because the theory of evolution matches existing evidence and the big fairy in the sky creating tilapia and dinosaurs and butterflies all the same does not.
Click to expand...

I am not threatened by what you or anyone else believes.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]



Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science haters can piss in their faces all day, promoting that their fairy in the sky created everything with a big 'poof'.
> 
> It does not change the fact that evolution is the only theory that matches the known science for how the organisms in the world today are the organisms that they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened?
> 
> Remember- I am no the one starting threads on Coelacanth- that is you feeling threatened because the theory of evolution matches existing evidence and the big fairy in the sky creating tilapia and dinosaurs and butterflies all the same does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not threatened by what you or anyone else believes.
Click to expand...


Good- no one should be. Shame Weatherboy is.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
Click to expand...

I used dates a group of scientists use. 
Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?


----------



## Weatherman2020

RWNJ said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science haters can piss in their faces all day, promoting that their fairy in the sky created everything with a big 'poof'.
> 
> It does not change the fact that evolution is the only theory that matches the known science for how the organisms in the world today are the organisms that they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened?
> 
> Remember- I am no the one starting threads on Coelacanth- that is you feeling threatened because the theory of evolution matches existing evidence and the big fairy in the sky creating tilapia and dinosaurs and butterflies all the same does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not threatened by what you or anyone else believes.
Click to expand...

Anyone who lashes out with the response everyone is stupid but me reply simply validates they are losing the argument and are insecure.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Weatherman2020 said:


> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.



Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
Click to expand...


And you believe those 'group of scientists' when it comes to those dates- but you don't believe the group of scientists who have supported the theory of evolution?

As to why no changes- there are two responses:

Are there 'no' changes? There isn't even just one tilapia species- which one hasn't changed? How do you know that there has been 'no change'? 

And why would a successful species change? If you understood the Theory of Evolution- there is nothing in the Theory that says a species must change- only that existing species have evolved from earlier species. 
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago? 

If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today. 

Where is the evidence that they did?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Vandalshandle said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe those 'group of scientists' when it comes to those dates- but you don't believe the group of scientists who have supported the theory of evolution?
> 
> As to why no changes- there are two responses:
> 
> Are there 'no' changes? There isn't even just one tilapia species- which one hasn't changed? How do you know that there has been 'no change'?
> 
> And why would a successful species change? If you understood the Theory of Evolution- there is nothing in the Theory that says a species must change- only that existing species have evolved from earlier species.
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
Click to expand...

Not the same group of scientists, dufus.  And I'm only using their dates because you have been programmed to believe them.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe those 'group of scientists' when it comes to those dates- but you don't believe the group of scientists who have supported the theory of evolution?
> 
> As to why no changes- there are two responses:
> 
> Are there 'no' changes? There isn't even just one tilapia species- which one hasn't changed? How do you know that there has been 'no change'?
> 
> And why would a successful species change? If you understood the Theory of Evolution- there is nothing in the Theory that says a species must change- only that existing species have evolved from earlier species.
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same group of scientists, dufus.  And I'm only using their dates because you have been programmed to believe them.
Click to expand...


So you used dates you don't believe in- to support your post? And of course you ignore everything else in my post- no shock there coming from a creationist who believes some fairy in the sky plopped humans down on earth. 

As to why no changes- there are two responses:

Are there 'no' changes? There isn't even just one tilapia species- which one hasn't changed? How do you know that there has been 'no change'? 

And why would a successful species change? If you understood the Theory of Evolution- there is nothing in the Theory that says a species must change- only that existing species have evolved from earlier species.
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?

If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.

Where is the evidence that they did?


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
Click to expand...


LOL

Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.

You don't even believe what you claimed.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe those 'group of scientists' when it comes to those dates- but you don't believe the group of scientists who have supported the theory of evolution?
> 
> As to why no changes- there are two responses:
> 
> Are there 'no' changes? There isn't even just one tilapia species- which one hasn't changed? How do you know that there has been 'no change'?
> 
> And why would a successful species change? If you understood the Theory of Evolution- there is nothing in the Theory that says a species must change- only that existing species have evolved from earlier species.
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
Click to expand...

So your defense is that Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution.
That really is the best defense you have.
Not true, but still the best defense.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
Click to expand...

From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe those 'group of scientists' when it comes to those dates- but you don't believe the group of scientists who have supported the theory of evolution?
> 
> As to why no changes- there are two responses:
> 
> Are there 'no' changes? There isn't even just one tilapia species- which one hasn't changed? How do you know that there has been 'no change'?
> 
> And why would a successful species change? If you understood the Theory of Evolution- there is nothing in the Theory that says a species must change- only that existing species have evolved from earlier species.
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your defense is that Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution.
> That really is the best defense you have.
> Not true, but still the best defense.
Click to expand...


No- apparently reading comprehension is a problem for Creationists.

There is no 'pinnacle of success' when it comes to evolution. 

As to why no changes- there are two responses:

Are there 'no' changes? There isn't even just one tilapia species- which one hasn't changed? How do you know that there has been 'no change'? 

And why would a successful species change? If you understood the Theory of Evolution- there is nothing in the Theory that says a species must change- only that existing species have evolved from earlier species.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
Click to expand...


From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.

Which is why of course you dodged this question:

Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?

If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.

Where is the evidence that they did?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
> 
> Thank you moderators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
Click to expand...

There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.

Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
Click to expand...


You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?

You specifically claimed this:
_
Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. *Which has been land locked for over 6 million years y*et is still it's same old tasty self._

Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?


----------



## RWNJ

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
Click to expand...

You can't reason with someone like him. He honestly believes that you can randomly change lines of code in the Windows OS and make it run better. It's no different than believing that random mutations are responsible for increased complexity in living organisms. And just as stupid.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
> 
> You specifically claimed this:
> _
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. *Which has been land locked for over 6 million years y*et is still it's same old tasty self._
> 
> Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
Click to expand...

It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  If you don't agree with that, just say so and we can move on.  But if you agree, the fact no one can answer why it remains unchanged over 66 million years simply validates my point.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
> 
> You specifically claimed this:
> _
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. *Which has been land locked for over 6 million years y*et is still it's same old tasty self._
> 
> Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  .
Click to expand...


When did I take that position?

Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:

_Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.


Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_

You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.

Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?

And why are you so terrified to answer that question?


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
> 
> You don't even believe what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't reason with someone like him. He honestly believes that you can randomly change lines of code in the Windows OS and make it run better. It's no different than believing that random mutations are responsible for increased complexity in living organisms. And just as stupid.
Click to expand...


LOL

Another creationist who lies about what I think.

And is just ignorant about evolution.


----------



## ScienceRocks

No amount of evidence or ground truth will ever change the mind of weatherman2020. What a joke of a user name man....Why not Jesuslovesyou2020?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
> 
> You specifically claimed this:
> _
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. *Which has been land locked for over 6 million years y*et is still it's same old tasty self._
> 
> Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
Click to expand...

The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.

The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Matthew said:


> No amount of evidence or ground truth will ever change the mind of weatherman2020. What a joke of a user name man....Why not Jesuslovesyou2020?


I have yet to see evidence presented.
Feel free to provide some, that's what this thread is about.
But seems all you parrots have is just repeating what they told you to parrot.
You lefties can't think on your own.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
> 
> Which is why of course you dodged this question:
> 
> Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
> 
> If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
> 
> Where is the evidence that they did?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
> 
> You specifically claimed this:
> _
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. *Which has been land locked for over 6 million years y*et is still it's same old tasty self._
> 
> Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
Click to expand...


Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.

Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?

Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with your lies again.  I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
> 
> Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
> 
> You specifically claimed this:
> _
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. *Which has been land locked for over 6 million years y*et is still it's same old tasty self._
> 
> Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Click to expand...

Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
> 
> You specifically claimed this:
> _
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. *Which has been land locked for over 6 million years y*et is still it's same old tasty self._
> 
> Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
> 
> 
> 
> It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
Click to expand...


I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.

What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Click to expand...


Sure you did.
Why do you believe them when they say 66 million years?
The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years.
If you know how much C14 atoms were present at the time, you can calculate time.
Scientists assume the ratio of C14 is a constant.
C14 is formed in the atmosphere from cosmic rays.
I challenge it is not a constant ratio.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Click to expand...

And I missed pointing out that since C14 has such a short half life, it is only good for dating back 80,000 years.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did..
Click to expand...


Yes I did.

So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
_*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
*
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?

The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.

If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> _*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
Click to expand...

Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> _*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?
Click to expand...


I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.

Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative. 

*Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?

The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.

If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *

Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> _*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
> 
> Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
> 
> *Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
Click to expand...

Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> _*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
> 
> Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
> 
> *Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.
Click to expand...


It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> _*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
> 
> Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
> 
> *Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
Click to expand...

I do not claim it, troll.
Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> _*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
> 
> Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
> 
> *Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
Click to expand...


So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
*Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
*
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?

The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.

If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*


----------



## abu afak

`





`


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I take that position?
> 
> Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
> 
> _Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?_
> 
> You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
> 
> Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
> 
> And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> Why do you believe them when they say 66 million years?
> The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years.
> If you know how much C14 atoms were present at the time, you can calculate time.
> Scientists assume the ratio of C14 is a constant.
> C14 is formed in the atmosphere from cosmic rays.
> I challenge it is not a constant ratio.
Click to expand...

Look dumb fuck, there are many, many different methods of dating, and most scientists use several when trying to establish a date. 

Geochronology - Wikipedia

*Contents*
  [1Dating methods

1.1Radiometric dating
1.2Fission-track dating
1.3Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology
1.4Luminescence dating
1.5Incremental dating
1.6Paleomagnetic dating
1.7Magnetostratigraphy
1.8Chemostratigraphy
1.9Correlation of marker horizons
If you were not so willfully ignorant, you would have looked them up before making an utter fool of yourself.


----------



## yiostheoy

Old Rocks said:


> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.


What people forget however is that Evolution is simply a theoretical model to explain why all the vertebrates have a backbone, and all the invertebrates do not.

The invertebrates are moved further down on the evolutionary scale as simpler creatures.

But the advantage in agility which the vertebrates have makes them ready predators on the invertebrates.

Take me for example.  I love freediving into the ocean and grabbing abalone (big snails) and lobster (crustaceans).  They are easy meat for my eyes, hands, legs, feet and lungs.  Survival of the fittest.

It is amazing that these invertebrates can even survive in competition with us vertebrates.  They would not either but for fish and wildlife regulations which protect them from over harvesting and poaching.

Abalone tastes best thinly sliced and raw.

Lobster tastes best lightly broiled and with melted butter.

Life Is Good -- if you are a vertebrate !!


----------



## yiostheoy

abu afak said:


> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


That looks like Sarah Palin !!

What a total M.I.L.F. !!


----------



## yiostheoy

RWNJ said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there's real evidence for evolution! You have no evidence for what you believe in....
> 
> God could of just as easily done things through evolution...So it doesn't disprove our lord.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...

Spam bot.

Ignore list.


----------



## yiostheoy

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Jesus holding a Coelacanth just before he turned feed 5,000 people with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently no taxpayer money was used  to pay for that bread and fish
Click to expand...

I think this is all a fish story.

I can live with wine out of water.

But not with fish out of thin air, sorry.


----------



## yiostheoy

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day teach him to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.


Give a man a spear, and then he can pick and spear the fish he wants to fish and not have to wait for them.

Grouper (aka Jew Fish or Sea Bass) and halibut are the best.

But the various rockfish cod are not bad either.

Ling cod's are the easiest to spear.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is about evolution, not dating.  Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
> 
> The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish.  An identical fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> Why do you believe them when they say 66 million years?
> The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years.
> If you know how much C14 atoms were present at the time, you can calculate time.
> Scientists assume the ratio of C14 is a constant.
> C14 is formed in the atmosphere from cosmic rays.
> I challenge it is not a constant ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb fuck, there are many, many different methods of dating, and most scientists use several when trying to establish a date.
> 
> Geochronology - Wikipedia
> 
> *Contents*
> [1Dating methods
> 
> 1.1Radiometric dating
> 1.2Fission-track dating
> 1.3Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology
> 1.4Luminescence dating
> 1.5Incremental dating
> 1.6Paleomagnetic dating
> 1.7Magnetostratigraphy
> 1.8Chemostratigraphy
> 1.9Correlation of marker horizons
> If you were not so willfully ignorant, you would have looked them up before making an utter fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

All of which begin with general assumptions that the earth is 4 billion years old and everything has always been static. "Dumb fuck".  Good one. Learn that in kindergarten last week?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
> 
> Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
> 
> *Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> *Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*
Click to expand...


You first need to understand how fossils are created.  They need to be instantly covered in silt.  A dead creature exposed a few days will be consumed and spread over a wide area.  Put a dead chicken in a rural field sometime for a week.  You will not find any trace. At best maybe a bone or two a hundred yards away. 
Only around 0.1% of fossils found are land creatures.  There are good reasons for this, but that is for another thread.  Your question of why human remains are not found with dinosaur fossils is good, but simply answered by statistical probability.  It is why it is very rare to find even one what you consider human relative fossil, yet you know there has to have been many.  This August I am going fossil hunting in Utah.  All I will find are marine creatures.  At best I will find footprints of land creatures as they walked in mud.  That is because of the many reasons land creatures skeletons do not become fossilized.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I believe My god is powerful enough to be tens of billions of years old and created a process that we call evolution.


Your idea of god is a much weaker god that is much more limited.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Matthew said:


> I believe My god is powerful enough to be tens of billions of years old and created a process that we call evolution.
> 
> 
> Your idea of god is a much weaker god that is much more limited.


On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are _their _fossils? This is the more vexing question.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
> 
> Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
> 
> Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> Why do you believe them when they say 66 million years?
> The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years.
> If you know how much C14 atoms were present at the time, you can calculate time.
> Scientists assume the ratio of C14 is a constant.
> C14 is formed in the atmosphere from cosmic rays.
> I challenge it is not a constant ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb fuck, there are many, many different methods of dating, and most scientists use several when trying to establish a date.
> 
> Geochronology - Wikipedia
> 
> *Contents*
> [1Dating methods
> 
> 1.1Radiometric dating
> 1.2Fission-track dating
> 1.3Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology
> 1.4Luminescence dating
> 1.5Incremental dating
> 1.6Paleomagnetic dating
> 1.7Magnetostratigraphy
> 1.8Chemostratigraphy
> 1.9Correlation of marker horizons
> If you were not so willfully ignorant, you would have looked them up before making an utter fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which begin with general assumptions that the earth is 4 billion years old and everything has always been static. "Dumb fuck".  Good one. Learn that in kindergarten last week?
Click to expand...

Crap, learn some geology in your kindergarden. LOL
*Precambrian Time*
The Precambrian's lower limit is not defined, but ended about 542 million years ago. The Precambrian encompasses about 90% of Earth's history.

*Eonothem eon* *Duration1* *Eras* *Events*
Archaean (Greek _archaios_ = ancient ) 2,500? Eoarchean (Greek _eos_ = dawn + _archaios_ = ancient)
Paleoarchean (Greek _palaios_ = old)
Mesoarchean (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
Neoarchean (Greek _neo_ = new) Formation of oceans, 
atmosphere, and continents; 
bacteria
Proterozoic (Greek _proteros_ = earlier + _zoön_ = animal) c. 2,000 Paleoproterozoic (Greek _palaios_ = old)
Mesoproterozoic (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
Neoproterozoic (Greek _neo_ = new) Oxygen build-up; 
multicelled organisms
1. In millions of years.
*Paleozoic Era*
This era began 542 million years ago and lasted about 291 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *palaios* *(old)* and *zoön* *(animal).*

*Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
Cambrian (_Cambria,_ Latin name for Wales) 54 Lower Cambrian
Middle Cambrian
Upper Cambrian Invertebrate sea life proliferating during this and the following period
Ordovician (Latin _Ordovices,_ people of early Britain) 45 Lower Ordovician
Upper Ordovician Diverse marine life, including vertebrates; vascular plants
Silurian (Latin _Silures,_ people of early Wales) 28 Lower Silurian
Upper Silurian Coral reefs; giant scorpions; first jawed fish
Devonian (Devonshire in England) 57 Lower Devonian
Upper Devonian Numerous fishes, other sea life; many plants, first trees; wingless insects
Carboniferous (Latin _carbo_ = coal + _fero_ = to bear) 60 Upper, Middle, and 
 Lower Mississippian2
Upper, Middle, and 
 Lower Pennsylvanian2 Maximum coal formation in swampy forests; insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans
Permian (district of Perm in Russia) 48 Lower Permian
Upper Permian Large reptiles, amphibians; most species become extinct
1. In millions of years.
2. Mississippian and Pennsylvanian names are used only in the U.S.
*Mesozoic Era*
This era began 251 million years ago and lasted about 186 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *mesos (middle) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Reptiles.*

*Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
Triassic (_trias_ = triad) 51 Lower Triassic
Middle Triassic
Upper Triassic Early dinosaurs, crocodiles, turtles; first mammals
Jurassic (Jura Mountains) 54 Lower Jurassic
Middle Jurassic
Upper Jurassic Many seagoing reptiles; early large dinosaurs; later, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), earliest known birds
Cretaceous (Latin _creta_ = chalk) 80 Lower Cretaceous
Upper Cretaceous Dinosaurs and other reptiles dominate; seed-bearing plants appear
1. In millions of years.
*Cenozoic Era1*
This era began 66 million years ago and includes the geological present. The name was compounded from Greek *kainos (new) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Mammals.*

*Period* *Duration2* *Epochs* *Events*
Paleogene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _genes_ = born) 42 Paleocene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _kainos_ = new). Eocene (Greek _eos_ = dawn). Oligocene (Greek _oligos_ = few). Rich insect fauna, early bats, increasingly diverse varieties of mammals and birds
Neogene (Greek _neo_ = new + _genes_ = born) 23 Miocene (Greek _meios_ = less + _kainos_ = new). Pliocene (Greek _pleios_ = more). Pleistocene (Greek _pleistos_ = most) (popular name: Ice Age). Holocene (Greek _holos_ = entire), the last 10,000 years to the present. Further development of mammals and birds. Various forms of humans, including _Homo sapiens_
1. This table reflects the divisions used by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. The U.S. Geological Survey divides the Cenezoic Era into the Tertiary Period (with the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene Epochs) and the Quaternary Period (with the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs).
2. In millions of years.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001822.html

*Now does that look static, you silly ass?*


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe My god is powerful enough to be tens of billions of years old and created a process that we call evolution.
> 
> 
> Your idea of god is a much weaker god that is much more limited.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are _their _fossils? This is the more vexing question.
Click to expand...

Silly ass, modern man, Homo Sapiens, has existed only about 200,000 years. 

Here you go for 8 million years of our ancestors.

Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
> Why it's almost as if you _know_ evolution of species is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> Why do you believe them when they say 66 million years?
> The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years.
> If you know how much C14 atoms were present at the time, you can calculate time.
> Scientists assume the ratio of C14 is a constant.
> C14 is formed in the atmosphere from cosmic rays.
> I challenge it is not a constant ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb fuck, there are many, many different methods of dating, and most scientists use several when trying to establish a date.
> 
> Geochronology - Wikipedia
> 
> *Contents*
> [1Dating methods
> 
> 1.1Radiometric dating
> 1.2Fission-track dating
> 1.3Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology
> 1.4Luminescence dating
> 1.5Incremental dating
> 1.6Paleomagnetic dating
> 1.7Magnetostratigraphy
> 1.8Chemostratigraphy
> 1.9Correlation of marker horizons
> If you were not so willfully ignorant, you would have looked them up before making an utter fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which begin with general assumptions that the earth is 4 billion years old and everything has always been static. "Dumb fuck".  Good one. Learn that in kindergarten last week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap, learn some geology in your kindergarden. LOL
> *Precambrian Time*
> The Precambrian's lower limit is not defined, but ended about 542 million years ago. The Precambrian encompasses about 90% of Earth's history.
> 
> *Eonothem eon* *Duration1* *Eras* *Events*
> Archaean (Greek _archaios_ = ancient ) 2,500? Eoarchean (Greek _eos_ = dawn + _archaios_ = ancient)
> Paleoarchean (Greek _palaios_ = old)
> Mesoarchean (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
> Neoarchean (Greek _neo_ = new) Formation of oceans,
> atmosphere, and continents;
> bacteria
> Proterozoic (Greek _proteros_ = earlier + _zoön_ = animal) c. 2,000 Paleoproterozoic (Greek _palaios_ = old)
> Mesoproterozoic (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
> Neoproterozoic (Greek _neo_ = new) Oxygen build-up;
> multicelled organisms
> 1. In millions of years.
> *Paleozoic Era*
> This era began 542 million years ago and lasted about 291 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *palaios* *(old)* and *zoön* *(animal).*
> 
> *Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
> Cambrian (_Cambria,_ Latin name for Wales) 54 Lower Cambrian
> Middle Cambrian
> Upper Cambrian Invertebrate sea life proliferating during this and the following period
> Ordovician (Latin _Ordovices,_ people of early Britain) 45 Lower Ordovician
> Upper Ordovician Diverse marine life, including vertebrates; vascular plants
> Silurian (Latin _Silures,_ people of early Wales) 28 Lower Silurian
> Upper Silurian Coral reefs; giant scorpions; first jawed fish
> Devonian (Devonshire in England) 57 Lower Devonian
> Upper Devonian Numerous fishes, other sea life; many plants, first trees; wingless insects
> Carboniferous (Latin _carbo_ = coal + _fero_ = to bear) 60 Upper, Middle, and
> Lower Mississippian2
> Upper, Middle, and
> Lower Pennsylvanian2 Maximum coal formation in swampy forests; insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans
> Permian (district of Perm in Russia) 48 Lower Permian
> Upper Permian Large reptiles, amphibians; most species become extinct
> 1. In millions of years.
> 2. Mississippian and Pennsylvanian names are used only in the U.S.
> *Mesozoic Era*
> This era began 251 million years ago and lasted about 186 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *mesos (middle) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Reptiles.*
> 
> *Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
> Triassic (_trias_ = triad) 51 Lower Triassic
> Middle Triassic
> Upper Triassic Early dinosaurs, crocodiles, turtles; first mammals
> Jurassic (Jura Mountains) 54 Lower Jurassic
> Middle Jurassic
> Upper Jurassic Many seagoing reptiles; early large dinosaurs; later, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), earliest known birds
> Cretaceous (Latin _creta_ = chalk) 80 Lower Cretaceous
> Upper Cretaceous Dinosaurs and other reptiles dominate; seed-bearing plants appear
> 1. In millions of years.
> *Cenozoic Era1*
> This era began 66 million years ago and includes the geological present. The name was compounded from Greek *kainos (new) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Mammals.*
> 
> *Period* *Duration2* *Epochs* *Events*
> Paleogene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _genes_ = born) 42 Paleocene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _kainos_ = new). Eocene (Greek _eos_ = dawn). Oligocene (Greek _oligos_ = few). Rich insect fauna, early bats, increasingly diverse varieties of mammals and birds
> Neogene (Greek _neo_ = new + _genes_ = born) 23 Miocene (Greek _meios_ = less + _kainos_ = new). Pliocene (Greek _pleios_ = more). Pleistocene (Greek _pleistos_ = most) (popular name: Ice Age). Holocene (Greek _holos_ = entire), the last 10,000 years to the present. Further development of mammals and birds. Various forms of humans, including _Homo sapiens_
> 1. This table reflects the divisions used by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. The U.S. Geological Survey divides the Cenezoic Era into the Tertiary Period (with the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene Epochs) and the Quaternary Period (with the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs).
> 2. In millions of years.
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001822.html
> 
> *Now does that look static, you silly ass?*
Click to expand...

Parroting outrageous time periods proves nothing. 
The geological layering suggests that a short, abrupt time period, not a long drawn out time period.  You don't get the clean abrupt lines in a slow process that you see over the entire world.



Something else is missing in all these abrupt transition zones.  There is no evidence of streams or rivers.  At some point you should find where a river or stream once flowed.

But you do see geological layering with abrupt zones in rapid formations. Like this one in Mount St Helens.




You also do not need long periods of time to form features that "take millions of years of erosion".  This one took a few months to form.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe My god is powerful enough to be tens of billions of years old and created a process that we call evolution.
> 
> 
> Your idea of god is a much weaker god that is much more limited.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are _their _fossils? This is the more vexing question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly ass, modern man, Homo Sapiens, has existed only about 200,000 years.
> 
> Here you go for 8 million years of our ancestors.
> 
> Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Click to expand...

The so called ancestors to man date back over 8 million years as you say.  Which means there has to have been trillions who lived and died.
Yet only a handful of fossils have been located.
Point made.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
> 
> Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
> 
> *Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> *Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first need to understand how fossils are created.  They need to be instantly covered in silt.  A dead creature exposed a few days will be consumed and spread over a wide area.  Put a dead chicken in a rural field sometime for a week.  You will not find any trace. At best maybe a bone or two a hundred yards away.
> Only around 0.1% of fossils found are land creatures.  There are good reasons for this, but that is for another thread.  Your question of why human remains are not found with dinosaur fossils is good, but simply answered by statistical probability.  It is why it is very rare to find even one what you consider human relative fossil, yet you know there has to have been many.  This August I am going fossil hunting in Utah.  All I will find are marine creatures.  At best I will find footprints of land creatures as they walked in mud.  That is because of the many reasons land creatures skeletons do not become fossilized.
Click to expand...


Funny that.

I have found dinosaur fossils in Utah myself. 

Not that I asked why human fossils are not found with dinosaur fossils.

So do you believe that the fish existed 66 million years ago- and humans did too? Or that neither existed 66 million years ago- and that the entire premise of this thread was you lying?


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe My god is powerful enough to be tens of billions of years old and created a process that we call evolution.
> 
> 
> Your idea of god is a much weaker god that is much more limited.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are _their _fossils? This is the more vexing question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly ass, modern man, Homo Sapiens, has existed only about 200,000 years.
> 
> Here you go for 8 million years of our ancestors.
> 
> Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so called ancestors to man date back over 8 million years as you say.  Which means there has to have been trillions who lived and died.
> Yet only a handful of fossils have been located.
> Point made.
Click to expand...

j

Where are the modern human fossils from the same time period?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> *Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first need to understand how fossils are created.  They need to be instantly covered in silt.  A dead creature exposed a few days will be consumed and spread over a wide area.  Put a dead chicken in a rural field sometime for a week.  You will not find any trace. At best maybe a bone or two a hundred yards away.
> Only around 0.1% of fossils found are land creatures.  There are good reasons for this, but that is for another thread.  Your question of why human remains are not found with dinosaur fossils is good, but simply answered by statistical probability.  It is why it is very rare to find even one what you consider human relative fossil, yet you know there has to have been many.  This August I am going fossil hunting in Utah.  All I will find are marine creatures.  At best I will find footprints of land creatures as they walked in mud.  That is because of the many reasons land creatures skeletons do not become fossilized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that.
> 
> I have found dinosaur fossils in Utah myself.
> 
> Not that I asked why human fossils are not found with dinosaur fossils.
> 
> So do you believe that the fish existed 66 million years ago- and humans did too? Or that neither existed 66 million years ago- and that the entire premise of this thread was you lying?
Click to expand...

Why didn't you find any signs of a human ansestor?  There should be trillions out there.

Fact remains:

~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age.)


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
> 
> What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> Why do you believe them when they say 66 million years?
> The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years.
> If you know how much C14 atoms were present at the time, you can calculate time.
> Scientists assume the ratio of C14 is a constant.
> C14 is formed in the atmosphere from cosmic rays.
> I challenge it is not a constant ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb fuck, there are many, many different methods of dating, and most scientists use several when trying to establish a date.
> 
> Geochronology - Wikipedia
> 
> *Contents*
> [1Dating methods
> 
> 1.1Radiometric dating
> 1.2Fission-track dating
> 1.3Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology
> 1.4Luminescence dating
> 1.5Incremental dating
> 1.6Paleomagnetic dating
> 1.7Magnetostratigraphy
> 1.8Chemostratigraphy
> 1.9Correlation of marker horizons
> If you were not so willfully ignorant, you would have looked them up before making an utter fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which begin with general assumptions that the earth is 4 billion years old and everything has always been static. "Dumb fuck".  Good one. Learn that in kindergarten last week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap, learn some geology in your kindergarden. LOL
> *Precambrian Time*
> The Precambrian's lower limit is not defined, but ended about 542 million years ago. The Precambrian encompasses about 90% of Earth's history.
> 
> *Eonothem eon* *Duration1* *Eras* *Events*
> Archaean (Greek _archaios_ = ancient ) 2,500? Eoarchean (Greek _eos_ = dawn + _archaios_ = ancient)
> Paleoarchean (Greek _palaios_ = old)
> Mesoarchean (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
> Neoarchean (Greek _neo_ = new) Formation of oceans,
> atmosphere, and continents;
> bacteria
> Proterozoic (Greek _proteros_ = earlier + _zoön_ = animal) c. 2,000 Paleoproterozoic (Greek _palaios_ = old)
> Mesoproterozoic (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
> Neoproterozoic (Greek _neo_ = new) Oxygen build-up;
> multicelled organisms
> 1. In millions of years.
> *Paleozoic Era*
> This era began 542 million years ago and lasted about 291 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *palaios* *(old)* and *zoön* *(animal).*
> 
> *Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
> Cambrian (_Cambria,_ Latin name for Wales) 54 Lower Cambrian
> Middle Cambrian
> Upper Cambrian Invertebrate sea life proliferating during this and the following period
> Ordovician (Latin _Ordovices,_ people of early Britain) 45 Lower Ordovician
> Upper Ordovician Diverse marine life, including vertebrates; vascular plants
> Silurian (Latin _Silures,_ people of early Wales) 28 Lower Silurian
> Upper Silurian Coral reefs; giant scorpions; first jawed fish
> Devonian (Devonshire in England) 57 Lower Devonian
> Upper Devonian Numerous fishes, other sea life; many plants, first trees; wingless insects
> Carboniferous (Latin _carbo_ = coal + _fero_ = to bear) 60 Upper, Middle, and
> Lower Mississippian2
> Upper, Middle, and
> Lower Pennsylvanian2 Maximum coal formation in swampy forests; insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans
> Permian (district of Perm in Russia) 48 Lower Permian
> Upper Permian Large reptiles, amphibians; most species become extinct
> 1. In millions of years.
> 2. Mississippian and Pennsylvanian names are used only in the U.S.
> *Mesozoic Era*
> This era began 251 million years ago and lasted about 186 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *mesos (middle) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Reptiles.*
> 
> *Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
> Triassic (_trias_ = triad) 51 Lower Triassic
> Middle Triassic
> Upper Triassic Early dinosaurs, crocodiles, turtles; first mammals
> Jurassic (Jura Mountains) 54 Lower Jurassic
> Middle Jurassic
> Upper Jurassic Many seagoing reptiles; early large dinosaurs; later, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), earliest known birds
> Cretaceous (Latin _creta_ = chalk) 80 Lower Cretaceous
> Upper Cretaceous Dinosaurs and other reptiles dominate; seed-bearing plants appear
> 1. In millions of years.
> *Cenozoic Era1*
> This era began 66 million years ago and includes the geological present. The name was compounded from Greek *kainos (new) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Mammals.*
> 
> *Period* *Duration2* *Epochs* *Events*
> Paleogene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _genes_ = born) 42 Paleocene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _kainos_ = new). Eocene (Greek _eos_ = dawn). Oligocene (Greek _oligos_ = few). Rich insect fauna, early bats, increasingly diverse varieties of mammals and birds
> Neogene (Greek _neo_ = new + _genes_ = born) 23 Miocene (Greek _meios_ = less + _kainos_ = new). Pliocene (Greek _pleios_ = more). Pleistocene (Greek _pleistos_ = most) (popular name: Ice Age). Holocene (Greek _holos_ = entire), the last 10,000 years to the present. Further development of mammals and birds. Various forms of humans, including _Homo sapiens_
> 1. This table reflects the divisions used by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. The U.S. Geological Survey divides the Cenezoic Era into the Tertiary Period (with the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene Epochs) and the Quaternary Period (with the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs).
> 2. In millions of years.
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001822.html
> 
> *Now does that look static, you silly ass?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parroting outrageous time periods proves nothing.
> The geological layering suggests that a short, abrupt time period, not a long drawn out time period.  You don't get the clean abrupt lines in a slow process that you see over the entire world.
> View attachment 116846
> Something else is missing in all these abrupt transition zones.  There is no evidence of streams or rivers.  At some point you should find where a river or stream once flowed.
> 
> But you do see geological layering with abrupt zones in rapid formations. Like this one in Mount St Helens.
> View attachment 116847
> 
> You also do not need long periods of time to form features that "take millions of years of erosion".  This one took a few months to form.
> View attachment 116848
Click to expand...

#1 is an angular unconformity in sedimentary rock.  Unconformities in Geology: Definition & Types - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

#2 appears to be a varved lake deposite







varved deposit | geology | Britannica.com
Encyclopedia Britannica550 × 413Search by image
Varved deposits attributed to sedimentation in Glacial Lake Missoula, Montana, U.S.
Visit page View image 























View more

#3 we have only your statement that coulee was created in a few months, no link. Looks like soft soils, so such is possible.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> *Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first need to understand how fossils are created.  They need to be instantly covered in silt.  A dead creature exposed a few days will be consumed and spread over a wide area.  Put a dead chicken in a rural field sometime for a week.  You will not find any trace. At best maybe a bone or two a hundred yards away.
> Only around 0.1% of fossils found are land creatures.  There are good reasons for this, but that is for another thread.  Your question of why human remains are not found with dinosaur fossils is good, but simply answered by statistical probability.  It is why it is very rare to find even one what you consider human relative fossil, yet you know there has to have been many.  This August I am going fossil hunting in Utah.  All I will find are marine creatures.  At best I will find footprints of land creatures as they walked in mud.  That is because of the many reasons land creatures skeletons do not become fossilized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that.
> 
> I have found dinosaur fossils in Utah myself.
> 
> Not that I asked why human fossils are not found with dinosaur fossils.
> 
> So do you believe that the fish existed 66 million years ago- and humans did too? Or that neither existed 66 million years ago- and that the entire premise of this thread was you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you find any signs of a human ansestor?  There should be trillions out there.
> 
> Fact remains:
> 
> ~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
> ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
> ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
> The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age.)
Click to expand...

No, there never were trillions of human ancestors. And there are quite a few hominoid fossils. Here are a few;

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> *Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first need to understand how fossils are created.  They need to be instantly covered in silt.  A dead creature exposed a few days will be consumed and spread over a wide area.  Put a dead chicken in a rural field sometime for a week.  You will not find any trace. At best maybe a bone or two a hundred yards away.
> Only around 0.1% of fossils found are land creatures.  There are good reasons for this, but that is for another thread.  Your question of why human remains are not found with dinosaur fossils is good, but simply answered by statistical probability.  It is why it is very rare to find even one what you consider human relative fossil, yet you know there has to have been many.  This August I am going fossil hunting in Utah.  All I will find are marine creatures.  At best I will find footprints of land creatures as they walked in mud.  That is because of the many reasons land creatures skeletons do not become fossilized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that.
> 
> I have found dinosaur fossils in Utah myself.
> 
> Not that I asked why human fossils are not found with dinosaur fossils.
> 
> So do you believe that the fish existed 66 million years ago- and humans did too? Or that neither existed 66 million years ago- and that the entire premise of this thread was you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you find any signs of a human ansestor?  There should be trillions out there.
> 
> Fact remains:
> 
> ~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
> ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
> ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
> The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age.)
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there never were trillions of human ancestors. And there are quite a few hominoid fossils. Here are a few;
> 
> List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Less than 200 found over a period of 7 million years.  Yes, there were trillions who lived and died.  Do the math.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> Why do you believe them when they say 66 million years?
> The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years.
> If you know how much C14 atoms were present at the time, you can calculate time.
> Scientists assume the ratio of C14 is a constant.
> C14 is formed in the atmosphere from cosmic rays.
> I challenge it is not a constant ratio.
> 
> 
> 
> Look dumb fuck, there are many, many different methods of dating, and most scientists use several when trying to establish a date.
> 
> Geochronology - Wikipedia
> 
> *Contents*
> [1Dating methods
> 
> 1.1Radiometric dating
> 1.2Fission-track dating
> 1.3Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology
> 1.4Luminescence dating
> 1.5Incremental dating
> 1.6Paleomagnetic dating
> 1.7Magnetostratigraphy
> 1.8Chemostratigraphy
> 1.9Correlation of marker horizons
> If you were not so willfully ignorant, you would have looked them up before making an utter fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which begin with general assumptions that the earth is 4 billion years old and everything has always been static. "Dumb fuck".  Good one. Learn that in kindergarten last week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crap, learn some geology in your kindergarden. LOL
> *Precambrian Time*
> The Precambrian's lower limit is not defined, but ended about 542 million years ago. The Precambrian encompasses about 90% of Earth's history.
> 
> *Eonothem eon* *Duration1* *Eras* *Events*
> Archaean (Greek _archaios_ = ancient ) 2,500? Eoarchean (Greek _eos_ = dawn + _archaios_ = ancient)
> Paleoarchean (Greek _palaios_ = old)
> Mesoarchean (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
> Neoarchean (Greek _neo_ = new) Formation of oceans,
> atmosphere, and continents;
> bacteria
> Proterozoic (Greek _proteros_ = earlier + _zoön_ = animal) c. 2,000 Paleoproterozoic (Greek _palaios_ = old)
> Mesoproterozoic (Greek _mesos_ = middle)
> Neoproterozoic (Greek _neo_ = new) Oxygen build-up;
> multicelled organisms
> 1. In millions of years.
> *Paleozoic Era*
> This era began 542 million years ago and lasted about 291 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *palaios* *(old)* and *zoön* *(animal).*
> 
> *Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
> Cambrian (_Cambria,_ Latin name for Wales) 54 Lower Cambrian
> Middle Cambrian
> Upper Cambrian Invertebrate sea life proliferating during this and the following period
> Ordovician (Latin _Ordovices,_ people of early Britain) 45 Lower Ordovician
> Upper Ordovician Diverse marine life, including vertebrates; vascular plants
> Silurian (Latin _Silures,_ people of early Wales) 28 Lower Silurian
> Upper Silurian Coral reefs; giant scorpions; first jawed fish
> Devonian (Devonshire in England) 57 Lower Devonian
> Upper Devonian Numerous fishes, other sea life; many plants, first trees; wingless insects
> Carboniferous (Latin _carbo_ = coal + _fero_ = to bear) 60 Upper, Middle, and
> Lower Mississippian2
> Upper, Middle, and
> Lower Pennsylvanian2 Maximum coal formation in swampy forests; insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans
> Permian (district of Perm in Russia) 48 Lower Permian
> Upper Permian Large reptiles, amphibians; most species become extinct
> 1. In millions of years.
> 2. Mississippian and Pennsylvanian names are used only in the U.S.
> *Mesozoic Era*
> This era began 251 million years ago and lasted about 186 million years. The name was compounded from Greek *mesos (middle) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Reptiles.*
> 
> *Period* *Duration1* *Epochs* *Events*
> Triassic (_trias_ = triad) 51 Lower Triassic
> Middle Triassic
> Upper Triassic Early dinosaurs, crocodiles, turtles; first mammals
> Jurassic (Jura Mountains) 54 Lower Jurassic
> Middle Jurassic
> Upper Jurassic Many seagoing reptiles; early large dinosaurs; later, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), earliest known birds
> Cretaceous (Latin _creta_ = chalk) 80 Lower Cretaceous
> Upper Cretaceous Dinosaurs and other reptiles dominate; seed-bearing plants appear
> 1. In millions of years.
> *Cenozoic Era1*
> This era began 66 million years ago and includes the geological present. The name was compounded from Greek *kainos (new) and* *zoön* *(animal). Popular name: Age of Mammals.*
> 
> *Period* *Duration2* *Epochs* *Events*
> Paleogene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _genes_ = born) 42 Paleocene (Greek _palaios_ = old + _kainos_ = new). Eocene (Greek _eos_ = dawn). Oligocene (Greek _oligos_ = few). Rich insect fauna, early bats, increasingly diverse varieties of mammals and birds
> Neogene (Greek _neo_ = new + _genes_ = born) 23 Miocene (Greek _meios_ = less + _kainos_ = new). Pliocene (Greek _pleios_ = more). Pleistocene (Greek _pleistos_ = most) (popular name: Ice Age). Holocene (Greek _holos_ = entire), the last 10,000 years to the present. Further development of mammals and birds. Various forms of humans, including _Homo sapiens_
> 1. This table reflects the divisions used by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. The U.S. Geological Survey divides the Cenezoic Era into the Tertiary Period (with the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene Epochs) and the Quaternary Period (with the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs).
> 2. In millions of years.
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001822.html
> 
> *Now does that look static, you silly ass?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parroting outrageous time periods proves nothing.
> The geological layering suggests that a short, abrupt time period, not a long drawn out time period.  You don't get the clean abrupt lines in a slow process that you see over the entire world.
> View attachment 116846
> Something else is missing in all these abrupt transition zones.  There is no evidence of streams or rivers.  At some point you should find where a river or stream once flowed.
> 
> But you do see geological layering with abrupt zones in rapid formations. Like this one in Mount St Helens.
> View attachment 116847
> 
> You also do not need long periods of time to form features that "take millions of years of erosion".  This one took a few months to form.
> View attachment 116848
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #1 is an angular unconformity in sedimentary rock.  Unconformities in Geology: Definition & Types - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
> 
> #2 appears to be a varved lake deposite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> varved deposit | geology | Britannica.com
> Encyclopedia Britannica550 × 413Search by image
> Varved deposits attributed to sedimentation in Glacial Lake Missoula, Montana, U.S.
> Visit page View image
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View more
> 
> #3 we have only your statement that coulee was created in a few months, no link. Looks like soft soils, so such is possible.
Click to expand...

Because my picture had nothing to do with water.  So what is your point again?



Mount St Helens.

These rocks were not deposited in annual layers. 








And back to my other point. No evidence of streams or rivers in any of the exposed layers.  Anywhere.
Nice abrupt transitions between them suggests cataclysmic events, not gradual layering over time.


----------



## Old Rocks

You are so full of shit. We trace river beds and there changes for millions of years. Such as the Columbia river for 20 million years.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> You are so full of shit. We trace river beds and there changes for millions of years. Such as the Columbia river for 20 million years.





Old Rocks said:


> You are so full of shit. We trace river beds and there changes for millions of years. Such as the Columbia river for 20 million years.


You miss the point. At some point some layer in the world should not be perfectly flat, but have a dip where a river or stream once flowed at a diagonal angle.  As you claim, there is hundreds of millions of years of work here to form these layers.  Surely there would have been at least one stream.




BTW - glad you brought up the Columbia.  The gorge was formed long after mankind arrived in the area. As well the Grand Canyon was not formed over millions of years as once believed. We now know one of the largest lakes in the west dried up long after mankind was on the scene and is today one of the hottest and driest places on earth.  Death Valley. 
Science is slowly moving towards the truth.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741


Whether you refer to fish in the ocean or reptiles like crocodiles, if they reach a stage in development that makes them successful in that stage, they no longer need to change to adapt.  With certain primates (hominids), the opposable thumb, along with being able to stand upright helped them change, learn and get larger brains.  A good example of evolutionary change over millions of years that can be followed, is the horse.


----------



## Weatherman2020

LuckyDuck said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you refer to fish in the ocean or reptiles like crocodiles, if they reach a stage in development that makes them successful in that stage, they no longer need to change to adapt.  With certain primates (hominids), the opposable thumb, along with being able to stand upright helped them change, learn and get larger brains.  A good example of evolutionary change over millions of years that can be followed, is the horse.
Click to expand...

A plankton is very successful.  So you agree, evolution of species is hogwash.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> *Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first need to understand how fossils are created.  They need to be instantly covered in silt.  A dead creature exposed a few days will be consumed and spread over a wide area.  Put a dead chicken in a rural field sometime for a week.  You will not find any trace. At best maybe a bone or two a hundred yards away.
> Only around 0.1% of fossils found are land creatures.  There are good reasons for this, but that is for another thread.  Your question of why human remains are not found with dinosaur fossils is good, but simply answered by statistical probability.  It is why it is very rare to find even one what you consider human relative fossil, yet you know there has to have been many.  This August I am going fossil hunting in Utah.  All I will find are marine creatures.  At best I will find footprints of land creatures as they walked in mud.  That is because of the many reasons land creatures skeletons do not become fossilized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that.
> 
> I have found dinosaur fossils in Utah myself.
> 
> Not that I asked why human fossils are not found with dinosaur fossils.
> 
> So do you believe that the fish existed 66 million years ago- and humans did too? Or that neither existed 66 million years ago- and that the entire premise of this thread was you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you find any signs of a human ansestor?  There should be trillions out there.
> 
> Fact remains:
> 
> ~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
> ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
> ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
> The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age.)
Click to expand...

Fact remains:

You claimed that a fish was 66 million years old- and you can't find any fossils of modern man anywhere near that old.

Fact remains is that there are no fossil explanation for your Creationist bunk.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Weatherman2020 said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you refer to fish in the ocean or reptiles like crocodiles, if they reach a stage in development that makes them successful in that stage, they no longer need to change to adapt.  With certain primates (hominids), the opposable thumb, along with being able to stand upright helped them change, learn and get larger brains.  A good example of evolutionary change over millions of years that can be followed, is the horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A plankton is very successful.  So you agree, evolution of species is hogwash.
Click to expand...

Each species that reaches the point in which it is very successful has no need to advance beyond that stage unless the environment or situations change thus necessitating physical changes.  Among fishes, the shark has reached the point whereby it is one of the top predators and thus won't alter unless the environment or circumstances necessitate change.  Evolution is that change which occurs when the circumstances and/or environment necessitate change for survival.  The primary component in T-Rex collagen is that of "chicken."  Researchers activating dormant DNA in chicken embryos created a facial feature more dinosaurial, while other researchers were able via activating dormant chicken DNA in embryos, to have teeth grow in those embryos.
The bottom line is that because a massive asteroid strike caused a global environmental change and because of this, newborn creatures following the strike had to adjust to their new habitat.   Those that couldn't died out and those that adapted, survived.


----------



## MaryL

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741


Attach >dodos in a can< eat that , mass extinction, no food, die offs. #ironic as hell.


----------



## Old Rocks

Transitional hominids. 


Very important find with implications that go well beyond just physical evolution.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> *Weatherboy:*_* The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first need to understand how fossils are created.  They need to be instantly covered in silt.  A dead creature exposed a few days will be consumed and spread over a wide area.  Put a dead chicken in a rural field sometime for a week.  You will not find any trace. At best maybe a bone or two a hundred yards away.
> Only around 0.1% of fossils found are land creatures.  There are good reasons for this, but that is for another thread.  Your question of why human remains are not found with dinosaur fossils is good, but simply answered by statistical probability.  It is why it is very rare to find even one what you consider human relative fossil, yet you know there has to have been many.  This August I am going fossil hunting in Utah.  All I will find are marine creatures.  At best I will find footprints of land creatures as they walked in mud.  That is because of the many reasons land creatures skeletons do not become fossilized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that.
> 
> I have found dinosaur fossils in Utah myself.
> 
> Not that I asked why human fossils are not found with dinosaur fossils.
> 
> So do you believe that the fish existed 66 million years ago- and humans did too? Or that neither existed 66 million years ago- and that the entire premise of this thread was you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you find any signs of a human ansestor?  There should be trillions out there.
> 
> Fact remains:
> 
> ~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
> ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
> ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
> The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age.)
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact remains:
> 
> You claimed that a fish was 66 million years old- and you can't find any fossils of modern man anywhere near that old.
> 
> Fact remains is that there are no fossil explanation for your Creationist bunk.
Click to expand...

You know you and science have no answers as to why evolution failed so you need to create strawmen to divert the topic.  Thank you for thinking so highly of me, but it was not I who is credited with coming up with dates of new species found in the fossil record.


----------



## Weatherman2020

LuckyDuck said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you refer to fish in the ocean or reptiles like crocodiles, if they reach a stage in development that makes them successful in that stage, they no longer need to change to adapt.  With certain primates (hominids), the opposable thumb, along with being able to stand upright helped them change, learn and get larger brains.  A good example of evolutionary change over millions of years that can be followed, is the horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A plankton is very successful.  So you agree, evolution of species is hogwash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each species that reaches the point in which it is very successful has no need to advance beyond that stage unless the environment or situations change thus necessitating physical changes.  Among fishes, the shark has reached the point whereby it is one of the top predators and thus won't alter unless the environment or circumstances necessitate change.  Evolution is that change which occurs when the circumstances and/or environment necessitate change for survival.  The primary component in T-Rex collagen is that of "chicken."  Researchers activating dormant DNA in chicken embryos created a facial feature more dinosaurial, while other researchers were able via activating dormant chicken DNA in embryos, to have teeth grow in those embryos.
> The bottom line is that because a massive asteroid strike caused a global environmental change and because of this, newborn creatures following the strike had to adjust to their new habitat.   Those that couldn't died out and those that adapted, survived.
Click to expand...

So you think DNA code can be changed by itself to an advantage in an instant of an asteroid changing the world climate?

A. Then stop worrying about global warming, it is a much more subtle change than an asteroid impact.
B. Go randomly change some code in your Windows 10 software and let me know how much better your computer runs.  And hint - life is a tad more complicated than Windows 10 systems software.


----------



## WinterBorn

If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.


Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.
Click to expand...


Cute.  But not really the issue.   Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.  But not really the issue.   Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.
Click to expand...

Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape.  It's still a virus.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.  But not really the issue.   Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape.  It's still a virus.
Click to expand...


Indeed it is still a virus.   But it is changed.  It evolved because of external pressure.  

It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.  But not really the issue.   Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape.  It's still a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is still a virus.   But it is changed.  It evolved because of external pressure.
> 
> It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.
Click to expand...

Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.  But not really the issue.   Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape.  It's still a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is still a virus.   But it is changed.  It evolved because of external pressure.
> 
> It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
> A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.
Click to expand...


Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker?   No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics?  Yes.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.  But not really the issue.   Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape.  It's still a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is still a virus.   But it is changed.  It evolved because of external pressure.
> 
> It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
> A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy is ridiculous.
> 
> If I get a tan, will my children be born darker?   No.
> 
> When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics?  Yes.
Click to expand...

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.  But not really the issue.   Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape.  It's still a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is still a virus.   But it is changed.  It evolved because of external pressure.
> 
> It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
> A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy is ridiculous.
> 
> If I get a tan, will my children be born darker?   No.
> 
> When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics?  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.
Click to expand...


Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species?    You can't?   I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change.  It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor.   That change is called "evolution".


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape.  It's still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is still a virus.   But it is changed.  It evolved because of external pressure.
> 
> It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
> A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy is ridiculous.
> 
> If I get a tan, will my children be born darker?   No.
> 
> When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics?  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species?    You can't?   I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?
> 
> The virus does, in fact, change.  It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor.   That change is called "evolution".
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about. 
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is still a virus.   But it is changed.  It evolved because of external pressure.
> 
> It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
> A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy is ridiculous.
> 
> If I get a tan, will my children be born darker?   No.
> 
> When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics?  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species?    You can't?   I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?
> 
> The virus does, in fact, change.  It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor.   That change is called "evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
> Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
> That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.
Click to expand...


I am not backing off anything.  I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
> A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is ridiculous.
> 
> If I get a tan, will my children be born darker?   No.
> 
> When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics?  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species?    You can't?   I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?
> 
> The virus does, in fact, change.  It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor.   That change is called "evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
> Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
> That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not backing off anything.  I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.
> 
> The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot. 
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.


----------



## Vastator

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
Click to expand...

Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is ridiculous.
> 
> If I get a tan, will my children be born darker?   No.
> 
> When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics?  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species?    You can't?   I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?
> 
> The virus does, in fact, change.  It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor.   That change is called "evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
> Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
> That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not backing off anything.  I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.
> 
> The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
> A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.
Click to expand...


There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species?    You can't?   I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?
> 
> The virus does, in fact, change.  It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor.   That change is called "evolution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
> Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
> That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not backing off anything.  I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.
> 
> The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
> A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.
> 
> And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.
Click to expand...

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Vastator said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..
Click to expand...

No environmental changes in 66 million years?
My, aren't we full of knowledge today.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species?    You can't?   I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?
> 
> The virus does, in fact, change.  It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor.   That change is called "evolution".
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
> Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
> That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not backing off anything.  I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.
> 
> The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
> A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.
> 
> And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post your evidence at any time.
Click to expand...


The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.


----------



## Vastator

Weatherman2020 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No environmental changes in 66 million years?
> My, aren't we full of knowledge today.
Click to expand...

Work on your reading comprehension. Periods, and commas mean something. I said no changes that would force the elimination of its current form. If you insist on quoting me; quote me in full. You'll appear somewhat less foolish.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
> Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
> That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not backing off anything.  I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.
> 
> The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
> A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.
> 
> And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post your evidence at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.
> 
> There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.
Click to expand...

Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.

That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com


----------



## Weatherman2020

Vastator said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No environmental changes in 66 million years?
> My, aren't we full of knowledge today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Work on your reading comprehension. Periods, and commas mean something. I said no changes that would force the elimination of its current form. If you insist on quoting me; quote me in full. You'll appear somewhat less foolish.
Click to expand...

So no fish has changed in 66 million years.  I agree that no fish has changed, my apologies.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not backing off anything.  I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.
> 
> The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
> A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.
> 
> And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post your evidence at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.
> 
> There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.
> 
> That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.
> 
> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com
Click to expand...


And where is the evidence that "God did it"?


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
> A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.
> 
> And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post your evidence at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.
> 
> There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.
> 
> That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.
> 
> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is the evidence that "God did it"?
Click to expand...

There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.
> 
> And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post your evidence at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.
> 
> There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.
> 
> That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.
> 
> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is the evidence that "God did it"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
> Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.
Click to expand...


You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.


 there are almost a hundred different species of tilapia, and there is more than one species in the Sea of Galilee. So I'm not sure how you think that's a point against evolution.



> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.


 The two genera of Coelacanth currently living are different from those found in fossils.  Not the same as those in fossils. Evolution clearly occurred.

There is nothing in Evolution that mandates change; many many species have remained relatively unchanged over the millennia because there were little or no changes that could benefit the species.


----------



## Vastator

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post your evidence at any time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.
> 
> There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.
> 
> That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.
> 
> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is the evidence that "God did it"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
> Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
Click to expand...

However there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the design is decidedly not intelligent.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post your evidence at any time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.
> 
> There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.
> 
> That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.
> 
> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is the evidence that "God did it"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
> Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> 
> there are almost a hundred different species of tilapia, and there is more than one species in the Sea of Galilee. So I'm not sure how you think that's a point against evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The two genera of Coelacanth currently living are different from those found in fossils.  Not the same as those in fossils. Evolution clearly occurred.
> 
> There is nothing in Evolution that mandates change; many many species have remained relatively unchanged over the millennia because there were little or no changes that could benefit the species.
Click to expand...

Coelacanth are still Coelacanth and Tilapia is still Tilapia after millions of years.
There is zero evidence any species can change into another more complex species.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is readily available.  There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.
> 
> There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.
> 
> That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.
> 
> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where is the evidence that "God did it"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
> Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
Click to expand...

Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist.  He completed his work saying God did it.
> 
> That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life.  They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going.  It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.
> 
> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the evidence that "God did it"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
> Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
Click to expand...

 I have no idea nor do I care.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> 
> 
> 
> there are almost a hundred different species of tilapia, and there is more than one species in the Sea of Galilee. So I'm not sure how you think that's a point against evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The two genera of Coelacanth currently living are different from those found in fossils.  Not the same as those in fossils. Evolution clearly occurred.
> 
> There is nothing in Evolution that mandates change; many many species have remained relatively unchanged over the millennia because there were little or no changes that could benefit the species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanth are still Coelacanth and Tilapia is still Tilapia after millions of years.
> There is zero evidence any species can change into another more complex species.
Click to expand...

Coelacanth and Tilapia are not species. Coelacanth is an Order, and Tilapia is a Tribe. 
So saying "Coelacanth is Coelacanth" is the equivalent of saying "Chihuahua, Walrus, raccoon, sabre-tooth tiger...they're all Carnivorans."


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the evidence that "God did it"?
> 
> 
> 
> There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
> Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
Click to expand...

Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
> Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
Click to expand...

 I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
Click to expand...

That would be a relevant comparison if there was any proposed alternative to time or if time needed any kind of mechanism.

As it is, the proposed theory for the diversity of species is Evolution. You are saying that you consider Evolution to be impossible and that instead what happened was...you don't know.   That's pretty useless.


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a relevant comparison if there was any proposed alternative to time or if time needed any kind of mechanism.
> 
> As it is, the proposed theory for the diversity of species is Evolution. You are saying that you consider Evolution to be impossible and that instead what happened was...you don't know.   That's pretty useless.
Click to expand...

 What are you talking about? You try to tell me an explosion created Beethoven and you have the audacity to say I need to know exactly how something works to believe in it?  Pffft.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
Click to expand...


As I have said, you have zero evidence for intelligent design.    You have repeatedly asked for evidence of evolution.   And yet, you have even less for ID.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer.  It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have said, you have zero evidence for intelligent design.    You have repeatedly asked for evidence of evolution.   And yet, you have even less for ID.
Click to expand...

 I have all of the evidence right here in this thread.
Explosions do not create order.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have said, you have zero evidence for intelligent design.    You have repeatedly asked for evidence of evolution.   And yet, you have even less for ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have all of the evidence right here in this thread.
> Explosions do not create order.
Click to expand...


I never said they did.

As for the high level of complexity, that is not proof evolution is not accurate.   The changes, as they come are minor tweaks to a larger system.   There is no explosion that turns an amoeba into a raccoon.   But if there are tiny changes to an amoeba, it can become a different animal, albeit still a micro-organism.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have said, you have zero evidence for intelligent design.    You have repeatedly asked for evidence of evolution.   And yet, you have even less for ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have all of the evidence right here in this thread.
> Explosions do not create order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they did.
> 
> As for the high level of complexity, that is not proof evolution is not accurate.   The changes, as they come are minor tweaks to a larger system.   There is no explosion that turns an amoeba into a raccoon.   But if there are tiny changes to an amoeba, it can become a different animal, albeit still a micro-organism.
Click to expand...

 Of course you claim explosions naturally evolve into order.  There are only two possibilities - buy what they want you to believe about evolution or there is intelligent design. 

And I have zero belief an explosion created Beethoven.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have said, you have zero evidence for intelligent design.    You have repeatedly asked for evidence of evolution.   And yet, you have even less for ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have all of the evidence right here in this thread.
> Explosions do not create order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they did.
> 
> As for the high level of complexity, that is not proof evolution is not accurate.   The changes, as they come are minor tweaks to a larger system.   There is no explosion that turns an amoeba into a raccoon.   But if there are tiny changes to an amoeba, it can become a different animal, albeit still a micro-organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you claim explosions naturally evolve into order.  There are only two possibilities - buy what they want you to believe about evolution or there is intelligent design.
> 
> And I have zero belief an explosion created Beethoven.
Click to expand...


What explosions are you talking about?   The theory of evolution does not address any explosion.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said, you have zero evidence for intelligent design.    You have repeatedly asked for evidence of evolution.   And yet, you have even less for ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have all of the evidence right here in this thread.
> Explosions do not create order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they did.
> 
> As for the high level of complexity, that is not proof evolution is not accurate.   The changes, as they come are minor tweaks to a larger system.   There is no explosion that turns an amoeba into a raccoon.   But if there are tiny changes to an amoeba, it can become a different animal, albeit still a micro-organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you claim explosions naturally evolve into order.  There are only two possibilities - buy what they want you to believe about evolution or there is intelligent design.
> 
> And I have zero belief an explosion created Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What explosions are you talking about?   The theory of evolution does not address any explosion.
Click to expand...

Of course evolution involves an explosion. An explosion of explosions.  So big all they can call it is The Big Bang. 

Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven.  Me, I go with intelligent design, I don't have that much faith.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said, you have zero evidence for intelligent design.    You have repeatedly asked for evidence of evolution.   And yet, you have even less for ID.
> 
> 
> 
> I have all of the evidence right here in this thread.
> Explosions do not create order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they did.
> 
> As for the high level of complexity, that is not proof evolution is not accurate.   The changes, as they come are minor tweaks to a larger system.   There is no explosion that turns an amoeba into a raccoon.   But if there are tiny changes to an amoeba, it can become a different animal, albeit still a micro-organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you claim explosions naturally evolve into order.  There are only two possibilities - buy what they want you to believe about evolution or there is intelligent design.
> 
> And I have zero belief an explosion created Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What explosions are you talking about?   The theory of evolution does not address any explosion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course evolution involves an explosion. An explosion of explosions.  So big all they can call it is The Big Bang.
> 
> Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven.  Me, I go with intelligent design, I don't have that much faith.
Click to expand...


What I thought was that you might have a modicum of knowledge about the theory of evolution.   It is obvious you don't.

The Big Bang is not part of it.   Nor is the origin of life on Earth.  This explains a lot.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have all of the evidence right here in this thread.
> Explosions do not create order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did.
> 
> As for the high level of complexity, that is not proof evolution is not accurate.   The changes, as they come are minor tweaks to a larger system.   There is no explosion that turns an amoeba into a raccoon.   But if there are tiny changes to an amoeba, it can become a different animal, albeit still a micro-organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you claim explosions naturally evolve into order.  There are only two possibilities - buy what they want you to believe about evolution or there is intelligent design.
> 
> And I have zero belief an explosion created Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What explosions are you talking about?   The theory of evolution does not address any explosion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course evolution involves an explosion. An explosion of explosions.  So big all they can call it is The Big Bang.
> 
> Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven.  Me, I go with intelligent design, I don't have that much faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I thought was that you might have a modicum of knowledge about the theory of evolution.   It is obvious you don't.
> 
> The Big Bang is not part of it.   Nor is the origin of life on Earth.  This explains a lot.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Nice spin, but we all know every public school is brainwashing kids into thinking algae  appeared out of nowhere and became a fish which became a frog which became an ape which became a man.

It is outrageous lies, and you know it.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did.
> 
> As for the high level of complexity, that is not proof evolution is not accurate.   The changes, as they come are minor tweaks to a larger system.   There is no explosion that turns an amoeba into a raccoon.   But if there are tiny changes to an amoeba, it can become a different animal, albeit still a micro-organism.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you claim explosions naturally evolve into order.  There are only two possibilities - buy what they want you to believe about evolution or there is intelligent design.
> 
> And I have zero belief an explosion created Beethoven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What explosions are you talking about?   The theory of evolution does not address any explosion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course evolution involves an explosion. An explosion of explosions.  So big all they can call it is The Big Bang.
> 
> Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven.  Me, I go with intelligent design, I don't have that much faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I thought was that you might have a modicum of knowledge about the theory of evolution.   It is obvious you don't.
> 
> The Big Bang is not part of it.   Nor is the origin of life on Earth.  This explains a lot.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin, but we all know every public school is brainwashing kids into thinking algae  appeared out of nowhere and became a fish which became a frog which became an ape which became a man.
> 
> It is outrageous lies, and you know it.
Click to expand...


It is obvious you didn't pay attention in class.

But, once again, feel free to post any evidence that supports intelligent design.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you claim explosions naturally evolve into order.  There are only two possibilities - buy what they want you to believe about evolution or there is intelligent design.
> 
> And I have zero belief an explosion created Beethoven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What explosions are you talking about?   The theory of evolution does not address any explosion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course evolution involves an explosion. An explosion of explosions.  So big all they can call it is The Big Bang.
> 
> Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven.  Me, I go with intelligent design, I don't have that much faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I thought was that you might have a modicum of knowledge about the theory of evolution.   It is obvious you don't.
> 
> The Big Bang is not part of it.   Nor is the origin of life on Earth.  This explains a lot.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin, but we all know every public school is brainwashing kids into thinking algae  appeared out of nowhere and became a fish which became a frog which became an ape which became a man.
> 
> It is outrageous lies, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious you didn't pay attention in class.
> 
> But, once again, feel free to post any evidence that supports intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Your inability to stand by what is being taught in classes to children has simply validated the OP, thank you.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What explosions are you talking about?   The theory of evolution does not address any explosion.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course evolution involves an explosion. An explosion of explosions.  So big all they can call it is The Big Bang.
> 
> Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven.  Me, I go with intelligent design, I don't have that much faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I thought was that you might have a modicum of knowledge about the theory of evolution.   It is obvious you don't.
> 
> The Big Bang is not part of it.   Nor is the origin of life on Earth.  This explains a lot.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin, but we all know every public school is brainwashing kids into thinking algae  appeared out of nowhere and became a fish which became a frog which became an ape which became a man.
> 
> It is outrageous lies, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious you didn't pay attention in class.
> 
> But, once again, feel free to post any evidence that supports intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to stand by what is being taught in classes to children has simply validated the OP, thank you.
Click to expand...


It has validated nothing.   I was discussing the theory of evolution.  A topic you obviously know little about, except talking points provided by evangelical pamplets.  lol

And when you post "Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven", your knowledge on the topic is readily evident.


----------



## Syriusly

Weatherman2020 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
> Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?
> 
> 
> 
> I used dates a group of scientists use.
> Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No environmental changes in 66 million years?
> My, aren't we full of knowledge today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Work on your reading comprehension. Periods, and commas mean something. I said no changes that would force the elimination of its current form. If you insist on quoting me; quote me in full. You'll appear somewhat less foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So no fish has changed in 66 million years.  I agree that no fish has changed, my apologies.
Click to expand...


No fish is 66 million years old

LOL

Meanwhile- you still can't explain why you claim a fish is 66 million years old- but there is no evidence that man is 66 million years old.


----------



## Syriusly

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course evolution involves an explosion. An explosion of explosions.  So big all they can call it is The Big Bang.
> 
> Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven.  Me, I go with intelligent design, I don't have that much faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I thought was that you might have a modicum of knowledge about the theory of evolution.   It is obvious you don't.
> 
> The Big Bang is not part of it.   Nor is the origin of life on Earth.  This explains a lot.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin, but we all know every public school is brainwashing kids into thinking algae  appeared out of nowhere and became a fish which became a frog which became an ape which became a man.
> 
> It is outrageous lies, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious you didn't pay attention in class.
> 
> But, once again, feel free to post any evidence that supports intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to stand by what is being taught in classes to children has simply validated the OP, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has validated nothing.   I was discussing the theory of evolution.  A topic you obviously know little about, except talking points provided by evangelical pamplets.  lol
> 
> And when you post "Yeah, you think molten lava became Beethoven", your knowledge on the topic is readily evident.
Click to expand...

yeah he is pretty much just a Creationist Troll. 

He makes crap up, and then runs away when confronted with it.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.



So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
Click to expand...


This is ignorance on a stunning level.


----------



## pinqy

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what happened.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
Click to expand...



Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.

And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.

In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
Click to expand...


I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Really? So why don't you list them for us?*

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:


A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.

*Contents*
*PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:

Introduction:
Types of transitions
Why are there gaps?
Predictions of creationism & evolution
What's in this FAQ
Timescale

Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds
*Reality.*


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*



All of this is ASSUMING that there are fossils that will fill the gaps, so what will you and your ilks response be when you never fill the gaps?


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
Click to expand...


You see, this is why I find your ilk so amusing.

YOu demand actual proof for evolution.  But you cling to ID with no evidence at all.   

Holes?  Yeah, I guess there are some gaps and things we don't know.   But there is far more evidence of evolution.  In fact, as I said, there is more evidence supporting extraterrestrial visitors than there is supporting ID.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then how did the designer do it?  Let's say or designer of creatures is Ghu. He decides the world needs a muskrat. How does he make it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how can you say it's possible or that a designer could even exist if you don't know how it would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea how time works but I know it does and it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a relevant comparison if there was any proposed alternative to time or if time needed any kind of mechanism.
> 
> As it is, the proposed theory for the diversity of species is Evolution. You are saying that you consider Evolution to be impossible and that instead what happened was...you don't know.   That's pretty useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about? You try to tell me an explosion created Beethoven and you have the audacity to say I need to know exactly how something works to believe in it?  Pffft.
Click to expand...

We know that none of the current species on earth existed 3 billion years ago. Based on fossils and DNA we see changes over time in the types of life on earth. Everything we see conforms to the idea of Natural Selection as the main mechanism for these changes.

You disagree and say it's impossible. What do you think better explains the changes over time? I'm not asking for detailed technical info...just a broad outline.


----------



## pinqy

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
Click to expand...

Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.

What do you think better explains these changes?


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
Click to expand...

There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
Click to expand...

I would be a coward to defend evolution taught in every public school too, it is such an absurdity with zero supporting evidence.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*


There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
Click to expand...

Then what do you think explains the changes is diversity of species?


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
Click to expand...

Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
Click to expand...


Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.

However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.

Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
Click to expand...

I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
Click to expand...

And your evidence of that is?
And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.


----------



## Weatherman2020

This is classic, I just saw it.  Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.

Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)

Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.


I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species?? 
Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.

But how do you explain the differences that do exist?


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
Click to expand...

But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
Click to expand...


You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.

The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.

Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.  


But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
> Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
> So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.
> 
> But how do you explain the differences that do exist?
Click to expand...

All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is classic, I just saw it.  Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.
> 
> Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)
> 
> Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering



First of all, the "tasty morsels" would have likely been plants.

Second of all, if a mutation allowed for stronger fins, those fish would have been able to nibble at the edges of the water.  They would have thrived and reproduced, further enhancing the new traits.  Eventually a new species would develop.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> 
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
Click to expand...

How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.

And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic, I just saw it.  Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.
> 
> Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)
> 
> Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the "tasty morsels" would have likely been plants.
> 
> Second of all, if a mutation allowed for stronger fins, those fish would have been able to nibble at the edges of the water.  They would have thrived and reproduced, further enhancing the new traits.  Eventually a new species would develop.
Click to expand...

You going with there were no plants in the ocean?  Really?
Man going to grow gills because we get most of our food from the ocean?


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
Click to expand...

Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
Are these different species?


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
> Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.
> 
> And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.
Click to expand...


Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit.  Biology points to evolution.  Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field.  Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop.  Evolution does not.

And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate.  Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.

Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory.  Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.


Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic, I just saw it.  Evolution is good for your health as laughter is the best medicine.
> 
> Fish learned to walk on land not because they grew limbs, but because they grew eyes and saw the tasty morsels on the land (where the tasty morsels came from is for other researchers to figure out I guess.)
> 
> Vision, Not Limbs, Led Fish Onto Land 385 Million Years Ago | News | Northwestern Engineering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the "tasty morsels" would have likely been plants.
> 
> Second of all, if a mutation allowed for stronger fins, those fish would have been able to nibble at the edges of the water.  They would have thrived and reproduced, further enhancing the new traits.  Eventually a new species would develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You going with there were no plants in the ocean?  Really?
> Man going to grow gills because we get most of our food from the ocean?
Click to expand...


If you are going to make up what I say, instead of going with what I actually said, you'll need to do better.

I did not say there were no plants in the ocean.  I simply said the tasty morsels referenced in the link were likely to be plants.  Animals compete for food.  If an animal has a way of getting food that others do not, it is more likely to reproduce and thrive in greater numbers.

Your childish nonsensical descriptions of evolution do not disprove it, nor do they support ID.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
> Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
> So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.
> 
> But how do you explain the differences that do exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
Click to expand...




Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
Click to expand...

No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
> Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.
> 
> And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit.  Biology points to evolution.  Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field.  Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop.  Evolution does not.
> 
> And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate.  Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.
> 
> Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory.  Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.
> 
> 
> Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.
Click to expand...

Dude, try to think outside  of the box you were programmed to parrot.  In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own.  In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.





You ever see how DNA replicates?  Dude, there are biological machines that do it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
> Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
> So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.
> 
> But how do you explain the differences that do exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
Click to expand...

how many species in this photo?


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
> Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.
> 
> And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit.  Biology points to evolution.  Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field.  Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop.  Evolution does not.
> 
> And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate.  Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.
> 
> Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory.  Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.
> 
> 
> Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, try to think outside  of the box you were programmed to parrot.  In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own.  In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.
> View attachment 118091
> 
> 
> You ever see how DNA replicates?  Dude, there are biological machines that do it.
> View attachment 118087
Click to expand...



Once again, can you offer any actual evidence to support ID?   It is a simple question.  So far you have only pointed to reasons you think evolution is not accurate.  That does nothing to provide evidence of ID.

Can you offer actual evidence supporting ID?


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
> Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
> So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.
> 
> But how do you explain the differences that do exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
Click to expand...



Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
> Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.
> 
> And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit.  Biology points to evolution.  Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field.  Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop.  Evolution does not.
> 
> And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate.  Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.
> 
> Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory.  Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.
> 
> 
> Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, try to think outside  of the box you were programmed to parrot.  In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own.  In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.
> View attachment 118091
> 
> 
> You ever see how DNA replicates?  Dude, there are biological machines that do it.
> View attachment 118087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, can you offer any actual evidence to support ID?   It is a simple question.  So far you have only pointed to reasons you think evolution is not accurate.  That does nothing to provide evidence of ID.
> 
> Can you offer actual evidence supporting ID?
Click to expand...

Please let me know an alternative theory to life today if evolution is not the answer.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
> Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
> So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.
> 
> But how do you explain the differences that do exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
Click to expand...

Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man. 
That is a byproduct of your programming of what to parrot.


----------



## WinterBorn

How many species are shown here?    Hint: 3 separate species


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
> Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.
> 
> And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your claim that "Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design" is bullshit.  Biology points to evolution.  Physics does not point to anything, since there is nothing in evolution that goes against that field.  Mathematics only points away from evolution when you expect all the changes in one felled swoop.  Evolution does not.
> 
> And even if (and it does not) those pointed towards evolution NOT being accurate.  Your insistence that it points towards ID is ridiculous.
> 
> Disproving one theory (if you had) does not prove another theory.  Either ID stands on its own, with the same expectations of evidence, or it does not.
> 
> 
> Please offer any evidence that ID is legit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, try to think outside  of the box you were programmed to parrot.  In physics, chaos does not evolve into order on it's own.  In biology, even assuming 4 billion years, molten terrain does not become a human genome.
> View attachment 118091
> 
> 
> You ever see how DNA replicates?  Dude, there are biological machines that do it.
> View attachment 118087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, can you offer any actual evidence to support ID?   It is a simple question.  So far you have only pointed to reasons you think evolution is not accurate.  That does nothing to provide evidence of ID.
> 
> Can you offer actual evidence supporting ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please let me know an alternative theory to life today if evolution is not the answer.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to stop dancing and actually answer my question.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
> Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
> So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.
> 
> But how do you explain the differences that do exist?
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> That is a byproduct of your programming of what to parrot.
Click to expand...


No, that is merely listening to scientists who know that appearance does not determine species.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry are you claiming that all fossils from millions of years ago look just like current species??
> Evolution states that species change over time, but that doesn't mean all species change to the same degree.
> So that some species are pretty much the same as millions of years abo does not contradict Evolution in any way. It's expected.
> 
> But how do you explain the differences that do exist?
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> .
Click to expand...

 No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.

But you're still tap-dancing.
How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> How many species are shown here?    Hint: 3 separate species


Excellent example, thanks for bringing them to the discussion.  I see a butterfly.  Period.
A butterfly that takes three generations to travel from a mountain in Mexico to fields in Canada 2,000 miles away, then in one generation goes back to the same mountain in Mexico.

A. Butterflies are not built for travel.  Wind or rain and they are grounded.
B. The butterflies in Canada go back to the same mountain that their ancestors three generations ago came from. How? Why?


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> That is a byproduct of your programming of what to parrot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is merely listening to scientists who know that appearance does not determine species.
Click to expand...

So you know a Coelacanth could not interbreed?


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm asking for is evidence.  And the only evidence available shows that species remain the same species over millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.
> 
> But you're still tap-dancing.
> How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?
Click to expand...

So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many species are shown here?    Hint: 3 separate species
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent example, thanks for bringing them to the discussion.  I see a butterfly.  Period.
> A butterfly that takes three generations to travel from a mountain in Mexico to fields in Canada 2,000 miles away, then in one generation goes back to the same mountain in Mexico.
> 
> A. Butterflies are not built for travel.  Wind or rain and they are grounded.
> B. The butterflies in Canada go back to the same mountain that their ancestors three generations ago came from. How? Why?
Click to expand...



What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.

And only one species shown migrates at all.   The other two species do not migrate.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. they're not. But there are two current species of Coelacanths now, and they are not the same as those from millions of years ago.
> Coelacanth does NOT refer to a species.  It refers to an ORDER.  You're saying there's no difference between a Gorilla and a lemur because they're both primates.
> 
> 
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.
> 
> But you're still tap-dancing.
> How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
Click to expand...


You still have not answered my very simple question.

Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many species are shown here?    Hint: 3 separate species
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent example, thanks for bringing them to the discussion.  I see a butterfly.  Period.
> A butterfly that takes three generations to travel from a mountain in Mexico to fields in Canada 2,000 miles away, then in one generation goes back to the same mountain in Mexico.
> 
> A. Butterflies are not built for travel.  Wind or rain and they are grounded.
> B. The butterflies in Canada go back to the same mountain that their ancestors three generations ago came from. How? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.
> 
> And only one species shown migrates at all.   The other two species do not migrate.
Click to expand...

Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many species in this photo?
> View attachment 118092
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.
> 
> But you're still tap-dancing.
> How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
Click to expand...

Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Oh looky there. A butterfly.  120 million years old according to the "experts"


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously only one.  This proves nothing where the coelacanth is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.
> 
> But you're still tap-dancing.
> How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
Click to expand...


No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Why is that?


*Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so a coelacanth that is 1 foot longer is a different species, but because it is humans, a 6-6 300 pound black man is the same species as a 4 foot white man.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.
> 
> But you're still tap-dancing.
> How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
Click to expand...

I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.

Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many species are shown here?    Hint: 3 separate species
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent example, thanks for bringing them to the discussion.  I see a butterfly.  Period.
> A butterfly that takes three generations to travel from a mountain in Mexico to fields in Canada 2,000 miles away, then in one generation goes back to the same mountain in Mexico.
> 
> A. Butterflies are not built for travel.  Wind or rain and they are grounded.
> B. The butterflies in Canada go back to the same mountain that their ancestors three generations ago came from. How? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.
> 
> And only one species shown migrates at all.   The other two species do not migrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
Click to expand...


So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.
> 
> But you're still tap-dancing.
> How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
Click to expand...


The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many species are shown here?    Hint: 3 separate species
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent example, thanks for bringing them to the discussion.  I see a butterfly.  Period.
> A butterfly that takes three generations to travel from a mountain in Mexico to fields in Canada 2,000 miles away, then in one generation goes back to the same mountain in Mexico.
> 
> A. Butterflies are not built for travel.  Wind or rain and they are grounded.
> B. The butterflies in Canada go back to the same mountain that their ancestors three generations ago came from. How? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.
> 
> And only one species shown migrates at all.   The other two species do not migrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
Click to expand...

Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.

The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
Click to expand...

Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many species are shown here?    Hint: 3 separate species
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent example, thanks for bringing them to the discussion.  I see a butterfly.  Period.
> A butterfly that takes three generations to travel from a mountain in Mexico to fields in Canada 2,000 miles away, then in one generation goes back to the same mountain in Mexico.
> 
> A. Butterflies are not built for travel.  Wind or rain and they are grounded.
> B. The butterflies in Canada go back to the same mountain that their ancestors three generations ago came from. How? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.
> 
> And only one species shown migrates at all.   The other two species do not migrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
Click to expand...



I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
Click to expand...


You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent example, thanks for bringing them to the discussion.  I see a butterfly.  Period.
> A butterfly that takes three generations to travel from a mountain in Mexico to fields in Canada 2,000 miles away, then in one generation goes back to the same mountain in Mexico.
> 
> A. Butterflies are not built for travel.  Wind or rain and they are grounded.
> B. The butterflies in Canada go back to the same mountain that their ancestors three generations ago came from. How? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.
> 
> And only one species shown migrates at all.   The other two species do not migrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
Click to expand...

Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.
> 
> And only one species shown migrates at all.   The other two species do not migrate.
> 
> 
> 
> Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
Click to expand...


I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.

Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
Click to expand...

Try doing some internet research today on logic.

If one of two possibilities is eliminated, what does that mean?


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
Click to expand...

Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
Panspermia,
Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Scientific Creationism
All other Creation myths/theories
Theistic Evolution
Abiogenesis

Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
Click to expand...

Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
Click to expand...

Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.


----------



## Weatherman2020

They have eyes, but they do not see.


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try doing some internet research today on logic.
> 
> If one of two possibilities is eliminated, what does that mean?
Click to expand...




Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
Click to expand...

Then why did you bring up "existence of life?"
And if species do not evolve into other species, then where did modern species come from?


----------



## Weatherman2020

pinqy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try doing some internet research today on logic.
> 
> If one of two possibilities is eliminated, what does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why did you bring up "existence of life?"
> And if species do not evolve into other species, then where did modern species come from?
Click to expand...

People will tell you that life is like a tree, branching out into all the various species you see today.  What really occurred, which is supported in the fossil record as I have shown with the butterfly and fish, is that the species were created simply branched out into variations within the species.  For example dogs.  Most of the breeds you see today were created in just the past 150 years


----------



## idb

So, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?


----------



## Weatherman2020

idb said:


> So, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?


No.  The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occur


----------



## idb

Weatherman2020 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occur
Click to expand...

Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.


----------



## Weatherman2020

idb said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.
Click to expand...

Evolution of species  into another species.  That is beyond faith and logic.


----------



## idb

Weatherman2020 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution of species  into another species.  That is beyond faith and logic.
Click to expand...

Logic?
If you have faith why do you need logic?


----------



## Weatherman2020

idb said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution of species  into another species.  That is beyond faith and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic?
> If you have faith why do you need logic?
Click to expand...

Start a thread on it and find out.


----------



## idb

Weatherman2020 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution of species  into another species.  That is beyond faith and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic?
> If you have faith why do you need logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a thread on it and find out.
Click to expand...

Nah


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try doing some internet research today on logic.
> 
> If one of two possibilities is eliminated, what does that mean?
Click to expand...


No, that is not how it works.    If you disprove one theory, the other does not become true by default.  It must stand up to the same standards you applied to Evolution.

In other words, evidence.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
Click to expand...


No it is not.  Numerous times you have talked about "explosions" and how life did not come from molten lava.  Those have nothing to do with species evolving into other species.

They have nothing to do with reality either, but certainly not with the topic of species evolving into other species.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
Click to expand...


How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.

It is also not exclusive to humans.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
> 
> The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Numerous times you have talked about "explosions" and how life did not come from molten lava.  Those have nothing to do with species evolving into other species.
> 
> They have nothing to do with reality either, but certainly not with the topic of species evolving into other species.
Click to expand...

So you too refuse to believe what children are being brainwashed into believing on how the universe and earth were created.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in any corner.    You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species.  Migration is irrelevant.    It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
Click to expand...


I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.

Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.

That proves nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Numerous times you have talked about "explosions" and how life did not come from molten lava.  Those have nothing to do with species evolving into other species.
> 
> They have nothing to do with reality either, but certainly not with the topic of species evolving into other species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you too refuse to believe what children are being brainwashed into believing on how the universe and earth were created.
Click to expand...


Once again, you lie about what I actually said.  You have done that a lot in this thread.

No, I did not say anything about what I believe.  I simply corrected your claim that the topic is evolution of one species into another.  You have branched off that topic numerous times.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Numerous times you have talked about "explosions" and how life did not come from molten lava.  Those have nothing to do with species evolving into other species.
> 
> They have nothing to do with reality either, but certainly not with the topic of species evolving into other species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you too refuse to believe what children are being brainwashed into believing on how the universe and earth were created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you lie about what I actually said.  You have done that a lot in this thread.
> 
> No, I did not say anything about what I believe.  I simply corrected your claim that the topic is evolution of one species into another.  You have branched off that topic numerous times.
Click to expand...

You cannot unlink the creation of the earth as taught in public school and evolution of the creation of species as taught in public schools simply because it proves my point.  The two remain distinctly intertwined.

It is pure BS that your ancestor was bacteria that came from a molten landscape.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.

Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Numerous times you have talked about "explosions" and how life did not come from molten lava.  Those have nothing to do with species evolving into other species.
> 
> They have nothing to do with reality either, but certainly not with the topic of species evolving into other species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you too refuse to believe what children are being brainwashed into believing on how the universe and earth were created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you lie about what I actually said.  You have done that a lot in this thread.
> 
> No, I did not say anything about what I believe.  I simply corrected your claim that the topic is evolution of one species into another.  You have branched off that topic numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot unlink the creation of the earth as taught in public school and evolution of the creation of species as taught in public schools simply because it proves my point.  The two remain distinctly intertwined.
> 
> It is pure BS that your ancestor was bacteria that came from a molten landscape.
> View attachment 118208
Click to expand...


So you were lying when you said the topic is strictly species evolving into another species?   What a surprise.


Oh, and no scientific text, book, or paper has said life appeared in a "molten landscape".   You invent little shit like that in an attempt to ridicule the Theory of Evolution.  But it simply makes you look ignorant.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
Click to expand...


People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.

And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed butterflies prove evolution.   I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species.  Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
> 
> Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
Click to expand...


If anyone here is a robot, it is you.  I am happy to entertain any evidence of ID, but you have provided none whatsoever.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone here is a robot, it is you.  I am happy to entertain any evidence of ID, but you have provided none whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Like I said, start a thread on ID and it can be discussed there.  This thread is about the absurdity of evolution of species being taught in public schools.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence of ID.  Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.
> View attachment 118130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
Click to expand...

I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.


----------



## idb

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
Click to expand...

Have you never seen Youtube videos of animals being freed or let outside after years of confinement?
Joy is obvious.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone here is a robot, it is you.  I am happy to entertain any evidence of ID, but you have provided none whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, start a thread on ID and it can be discussed there.  This thread is about the absurdity of evolution of species being taught in public schools.
Click to expand...


I am just continuing the line of discussion that you, the OP, started.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
Click to expand...


When I have been gone for a week or so, he would come to me dancing and ignore you holding the steak.

Animals respond with great emotion, whether there is food offered or not.  To deny that is ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds?   It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
> 
> It is also not exclusive to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone here is a robot, it is you.  I am happy to entertain any evidence of ID, but you have provided none whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, start a thread on ID and it can be discussed there.  This thread is about the absurdity of evolution of species being taught in public schools.
Click to expand...


So you say.   But you have also said ID is a better explanation.   YOu are the one who brought it up.  Now, after being cornered, you want to remove it??   lol

And if you are going to talk about the absurdity of teaching evolution of species in school, you may as well leave out the talk of explosions or of molten lava becoming Beethoven.  They are not the same thing.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have been gone for a week or so, he would come to me dancing and ignore you holding the steak.
> 
> Animals respond with great emotion, whether there is food offered or not.  To deny that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Animals have no interest in beauty, arts, or good and evil simply because people are set aside from animals and are not our ancestors.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have been gone for a week or so, he would come to me dancing and ignore you holding the steak.
> 
> Animals respond with great emotion, whether there is food offered or not.  To deny that is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals have no interest in beauty, arts, or good and evil simply because people are set aside from animals and are not our ancestors.
Click to expand...


I know plenty of people who are not interested in beauty or art.   Your ideas of good & evil are not the same as other people's ideas of good and evil.  

You are welcome to claim we are set aside.  I simply see that we are more evolved.  The fossil record shows many intermediate steps between us and our common ancestors.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have been gone for a week or so, he would come to me dancing and ignore you holding the steak.
> 
> Animals respond with great emotion, whether there is food offered or not.  To deny that is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals have no interest in beauty, arts, or good and evil simply because people are set aside from animals and are not our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know plenty of people who are not interested in beauty or art.   Your ideas of good & evil are not the same as other people's ideas of good and evil.
> 
> You are welcome to claim we are set aside.  I simply see that we are more evolved.  The fossil record shows many intermediate steps between us and our common ancestors.
Click to expand...

We have three fossils in this thread.  6, 66 and 120 million years.  All looking like their kin today.

And I know a thing or two about animals. Horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, all sitting around my property right now, so don't try to BS me about animals


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
> 
> 
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have been gone for a week or so, he would come to me dancing and ignore you holding the steak.
> 
> Animals respond with great emotion, whether there is food offered or not.  To deny that is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals have no interest in beauty, arts, or good and evil simply because people are set aside from animals and are not our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know plenty of people who are not interested in beauty or art.   Your ideas of good & evil are not the same as other people's ideas of good and evil.
> 
> You are welcome to claim we are set aside.  I simply see that we are more evolved.  The fossil record shows many intermediate steps between us and our common ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have three fossils in this thread.  6, 66 and 120 million years.  All looking like their kin today.
> 
> And I know a thing or two about animals. Horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, all sitting around my property right now, so don't try to BS me about animals
Click to expand...


You have 3 fossils that resemble each other on the surface and without examination of a living creature.

If you have animals, especially horses and dogs, then you should know they form emotional bonds to people and to other animals.  I am not bullshitting you at all.  Especially since there are plenty of documented examples of animals grieving themselves to death after losing a loved one.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I have been gone for a week or so, he would come to me dancing and ignore you holding the steak.
> 
> Animals respond with great emotion, whether there is food offered or not.  To deny that is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals have no interest in beauty, arts, or good and evil simply because people are set aside from animals and are not our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know plenty of people who are not interested in beauty or art.   Your ideas of good & evil are not the same as other people's ideas of good and evil.
> 
> You are welcome to claim we are set aside.  I simply see that we are more evolved.  The fossil record shows many intermediate steps between us and our common ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have three fossils in this thread.  6, 66 and 120 million years.  All looking like their kin today.
> 
> And I know a thing or two about animals. Horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, all sitting around my property right now, so don't try to BS me about animals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have 3 fossils that resemble each other on the surface and without examination of a living creature.
> 
> If you have animals, especially horses and dogs, then you should know they form emotional bonds to people and to other animals.  I am not bullshitting you at all.  Especially since there are plenty of documented examples of animals grieving themselves to death after losing a loved one.
Click to expand...


I can pull out another hundred fossil photos that you can identify with creatures around today, so you are going nowhere fast.  Your argument that they reached some pinnacle of evolution or they are different somehow are just pure desperation to make things conform to your programed world.

Chew on this for awhile, I took the pic a few months ago. It's dated to around 1,000AD by the "experts"


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I have been gone for a week or so, he would come to me dancing and ignore you holding the steak.
> 
> Animals respond with great emotion, whether there is food offered or not.  To deny that is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Animals have no interest in beauty, arts, or good and evil simply because people are set aside from animals and are not our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know plenty of people who are not interested in beauty or art.   Your ideas of good & evil are not the same as other people's ideas of good and evil.
> 
> You are welcome to claim we are set aside.  I simply see that we are more evolved.  The fossil record shows many intermediate steps between us and our common ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have three fossils in this thread.  6, 66 and 120 million years.  All looking like their kin today.
> 
> And I know a thing or two about animals. Horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, all sitting around my property right now, so don't try to BS me about animals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have 3 fossils that resemble each other on the surface and without examination of a living creature.
> 
> If you have animals, especially horses and dogs, then you should know they form emotional bonds to people and to other animals.  I am not bullshitting you at all.  Especially since there are plenty of documented examples of animals grieving themselves to death after losing a loved one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pull out another hundred fossil photos that you can identify with creatures around today, so you are going nowhere fast.  Your argument that they reached some pinnacle of evolution or they are different somehow are just pure desperation to make things conform to your programed world.
> 
> Chew on this for awhile, I took the pic a few months ago. It's dated to around 1,000AD by the "experts"
> View attachment 118226
Click to expand...


Yes, you can show that not all animals evolved, or evolved where their external features are concerned.  That proves nothing, per se.

I have not said anything about a "pinnacle of evolution".    But its nice to see you are consistent with your lies.

No idea what the pic is supposed to show.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Animals have no interest in beauty, arts, or good and evil simply because people are set aside from animals and are not our ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty of people who are not interested in beauty or art.   Your ideas of good & evil are not the same as other people's ideas of good and evil.
> 
> You are welcome to claim we are set aside.  I simply see that we are more evolved.  The fossil record shows many intermediate steps between us and our common ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have three fossils in this thread.  6, 66 and 120 million years.  All looking like their kin today.
> 
> And I know a thing or two about animals. Horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, all sitting around my property right now, so don't try to BS me about animals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have 3 fossils that resemble each other on the surface and without examination of a living creature.
> 
> If you have animals, especially horses and dogs, then you should know they form emotional bonds to people and to other animals.  I am not bullshitting you at all.  Especially since there are plenty of documented examples of animals grieving themselves to death after losing a loved one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pull out another hundred fossil photos that you can identify with creatures around today, so you are going nowhere fast.  Your argument that they reached some pinnacle of evolution or they are different somehow are just pure desperation to make things conform to your programed world.
> 
> Chew on this for awhile, I took the pic a few months ago. It's dated to around 1,000AD by the "experts"
> View attachment 118226
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can show that not all animals evolved, or evolved where their external features are concerned.  That proves nothing, per se.
> 
> I have not said anything about a "pinnacle of evolution".    But its nice to see you are consistent with your lies.
> 
> No idea what the pic is supposed to show.
Click to expand...

And in all this I have yet to see 1 example for the case of evolution.
And it was another poster who claimed that, my apology.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty of people who are not interested in beauty or art.   Your ideas of good & evil are not the same as other people's ideas of good and evil.
> 
> You are welcome to claim we are set aside.  I simply see that we are more evolved.  The fossil record shows many intermediate steps between us and our common ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> We have three fossils in this thread.  6, 66 and 120 million years.  All looking like their kin today.
> 
> And I know a thing or two about animals. Horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, all sitting around my property right now, so don't try to BS me about animals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have 3 fossils that resemble each other on the surface and without examination of a living creature.
> 
> If you have animals, especially horses and dogs, then you should know they form emotional bonds to people and to other animals.  I am not bullshitting you at all.  Especially since there are plenty of documented examples of animals grieving themselves to death after losing a loved one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pull out another hundred fossil photos that you can identify with creatures around today, so you are going nowhere fast.  Your argument that they reached some pinnacle of evolution or they are different somehow are just pure desperation to make things conform to your programed world.
> 
> Chew on this for awhile, I took the pic a few months ago. It's dated to around 1,000AD by the "experts"
> View attachment 118226
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can show that not all animals evolved, or evolved where their external features are concerned.  That proves nothing, per se.
> 
> I have not said anything about a "pinnacle of evolution".    But its nice to see you are consistent with your lies.
> 
> No idea what the pic is supposed to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in all this I have yet to see 1 example for the case of evolution.
> And it was another poster who claimed that, my apology.
Click to expand...


There is enough evidence to satisfy the scientific community that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of species we have today, and for the extinction of those no longer here.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have three fossils in this thread.  6, 66 and 120 million years.  All looking like their kin today.
> 
> And I know a thing or two about animals. Horses, dogs, sheep, chickens, all sitting around my property right now, so don't try to BS me about animals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have 3 fossils that resemble each other on the surface and without examination of a living creature.
> 
> If you have animals, especially horses and dogs, then you should know they form emotional bonds to people and to other animals.  I am not bullshitting you at all.  Especially since there are plenty of documented examples of animals grieving themselves to death after losing a loved one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pull out another hundred fossil photos that you can identify with creatures around today, so you are going nowhere fast.  Your argument that they reached some pinnacle of evolution or they are different somehow are just pure desperation to make things conform to your programed world.
> 
> Chew on this for awhile, I took the pic a few months ago. It's dated to around 1,000AD by the "experts"
> View attachment 118226
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can show that not all animals evolved, or evolved where their external features are concerned.  That proves nothing, per se.
> 
> I have not said anything about a "pinnacle of evolution".    But its nice to see you are consistent with your lies.
> 
> No idea what the pic is supposed to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in all this I have yet to see 1 example for the case of evolution.
> And it was another poster who claimed that, my apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is enough evidence to satisfy the scientific community that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of species we have today, and for the extinction of those no longer here.
Click to expand...

Pffft.  They all have a vested interest in promoting their charade.  As I have shown, there is no evidence of species changing into other species.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have 3 fossils that resemble each other on the surface and without examination of a living creature.
> 
> If you have animals, especially horses and dogs, then you should know they form emotional bonds to people and to other animals.  I am not bullshitting you at all.  Especially since there are plenty of documented examples of animals grieving themselves to death after losing a loved one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can pull out another hundred fossil photos that you can identify with creatures around today, so you are going nowhere fast.  Your argument that they reached some pinnacle of evolution or they are different somehow are just pure desperation to make things conform to your programed world.
> 
> Chew on this for awhile, I took the pic a few months ago. It's dated to around 1,000AD by the "experts"
> View attachment 118226
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can show that not all animals evolved, or evolved where their external features are concerned.  That proves nothing, per se.
> 
> I have not said anything about a "pinnacle of evolution".    But its nice to see you are consistent with your lies.
> 
> No idea what the pic is supposed to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in all this I have yet to see 1 example for the case of evolution.
> And it was another poster who claimed that, my apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is enough evidence to satisfy the scientific community that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of species we have today, and for the extinction of those no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffft.  They all have a vested interest in promoting their charade.  As I have shown, there is no evidence of species changing into other species.
Click to expand...


You have shown nothing of the kind, and you know it.

Vested interest?   Are you joking?   Do you know what kind of fame and fortune a scientist would get if he disproved the Theory of Evolution?  He would go down in history.   It is not some private club.  It is a group of educated professionals applying strict standards to research.  That you think saying "It's too complicated" or making remarks like "Try random changes to your Windows 10 program" or "Molten lava did not become Beethoven" actually disproves anything shows more about your lack understanding of the theory, and of the science behind it, than it disproves anything.


----------



## cwise76

Talk about beating a dead horse.........


----------



## ScienceRocks

This is a really stupid thread.

Can you list anything science has done in the past 200 years that you agree with...jezz.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

idb said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Every culture on earth appreciates music and a good sunset.
> Next time you see a bunch of animals stop and stare at a sunset or gather around to play Mozart, you let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen animals respond emotionally or get excited at certain sights and sounds.   Pavlov even proved that.
> 
> Animals will react emotionally to the sight of their owners or even other humans or animals that they love.  Sounds can produce reactions in many animals.
> 
> That proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals react to people or sounds because they are going to get fed or sense danger.
> 
> Like I said, you refuse to look at any evidence outside of the box they put you inside of.  You are just a programmed robot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People react to people or sounds when they are going to be fed or sense danger too.   That is not the only time they react to sights or sounds.
> 
> And guess what?  That is not the only time animals respond to sights and sounds.   My dog responds with a great emotional display when he sees me.  He does the same when our other dog comes home after being gone over the weekend.  They see something that brings them joy and they respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give your dog a steak and guess who he is seeing first next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you never seen Youtube videos of animals being freed or let outside after years of confinement?
> Joy is obvious.
Click to expand...

Now if we could see Muslim women attain the same freedom.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Matthew said:


> This is a really stupid thread.
> 
> Can you list anything science has done in the past 200 years that you agree with...jezz.


Dufus with the typical "if they question me I just attack them as being anti-science".  I made my wealth on using science.  How many US Patents on medical devices with your name on it, dufus?


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can pull out another hundred fossil photos that you can identify with creatures around today, so you are going nowhere fast.  Your argument that they reached some pinnacle of evolution or they are different somehow are just pure desperation to make things conform to your programed world.
> 
> Chew on this for awhile, I took the pic a few months ago. It's dated to around 1,000AD by the "experts"
> View attachment 118226
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can show that not all animals evolved, or evolved where their external features are concerned.  That proves nothing, per se.
> 
> I have not said anything about a "pinnacle of evolution".    But its nice to see you are consistent with your lies.
> 
> No idea what the pic is supposed to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in all this I have yet to see 1 example for the case of evolution.
> And it was another poster who claimed that, my apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is enough evidence to satisfy the scientific community that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of species we have today, and for the extinction of those no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffft.  They all have a vested interest in promoting their charade.  As I have shown, there is no evidence of species changing into other species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have shown nothing of the kind, and you know it.
> 
> Vested interest?   Are you joking?   Do you know what kind of fame and fortune a scientist would get if he disproved the Theory of Evolution?  He would go down in history.   It is not some private club.  It is a group of educated professionals applying strict standards to research.  That you think saying "It's too complicated" or making remarks like "Try random changes to your Windows 10 program" or "Molten lava did not become Beethoven" actually disproves anything shows more about your lack understanding of the theory, and of the science behind it, than it disproves anything.
Click to expand...

You know soooooooooooo little about what goes on in the scientific community.  It is all built upon being PC with only studies being funded and supported that conform to current beliefs.  Try to get some telescope time on Palomar for a theory that does not conform.  It ain't happening.  Your inability to grasp what they have programmed you to parrot is your issue.  You have shown you have no real understanding of the BS you believe in because you simply do not choose to think on your own, you are just a mindless parrot.  You are terrified of the alternative.
There are a lot of scientists who do show the theory of evolution is a hoax.  They enlightened me.  But because people like you have a vested interest in making sure it sticks, they remain on the outside simply because of politics.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741



/---- So much for settled science


----------



## Weatherman2020

Cellblock2429 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /---- So much for settled science
Click to expand...

Evolution is the same scenario as global warming with the left.  Comply with what we feed you or we will destroy you.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
Click to expand...

*You are so full of stupidity, WM. Synapsids;*

Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals

The most obvious distinctions between mammals and reptiles are the fact that mammals have hair or fur, and mammary glands which they use to nourish their young. These features do not fossilize, and no known mammals have left hair or fur impressions in the rock surrounding their fossils. Fortunately, however, there are also a number of skeletal differences between reptiles and mammals. For one, reptiles have a mouth filled with several teeth which are more or less uniform in size and shape; they vary slightly in size, but they all have the same basic cone-shaped form. By contrast, mammals tend to have teeth which vary greatly in size and shape; everything from flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is comprised of _several different bones_, which hinge on the _quadrate _bone of the skull and the _angular_ bone of the jaw. In mammals, however, the lower jaw is comprised of only one bone - the _dentary_, which hinges at the _quadrate_ of the skull. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the _malleus_, _incus_ and _stapes_ (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). In reptiles, there is only one bone - the _stapes_. The reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the _occipital condyle_. In mammals, the occipital condyle is "double-faced". The classic reptilian skull also has a small hole, or "third eye" through which the pineal body extends - a trait not found in any known mammal. 

This brings us to the synapsid reptiles. Like mammals, they have a single, lower temporal fenestra. Already this makes them more akin to mammals than other reptiles, albeit with a very reptilian body; legs sprawled out, long whip-like tail, basically conical-uniformed teeth, etc.. One group of synapsid reptiles in particular, the _therapsids_, seem to break these rules and are adorned with very mammalian characteristics; in the more advanced forms, many of the bones absent in mammals were already being reduced to near extinction, and the "third eye" so small it might as well have been absent. [Romer, 1967, p. 226]


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first DNA had a meeting and drew lots into what they would evolve into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be a coward to defend evolution taught in every public school too, it is such an absurdity with zero supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

And that is why we prevent idiots like you from determining what is taught in public schools.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
> Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.
> 
> And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Look, you Goddamned lying little cretin, we have the entire fossil record with more fossils being found daily. And we have the map of our DNA and that of other living creatures, which demonstrate our relationship to all life on earth. That is profound evidence. And your little mythology has no more evidence than does that of any primitive tribal mythology.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You are so full of stupidity, WM. Synapsids;*
> 
> Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals
> 
> The most obvious distinctions between mammals and reptiles are the fact that mammals have hair or fur, and mammary glands which they use to nourish their young. These features do not fossilize, and no known mammals have left hair or fur impressions in the rock surrounding their fossils. Fortunately, however, there are also a number of skeletal differences between reptiles and mammals. For one, reptiles have a mouth filled with several teeth which are more or less uniform in size and shape; they vary slightly in size, but they all have the same basic cone-shaped form. By contrast, mammals tend to have teeth which vary greatly in size and shape; everything from flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is comprised of _several different bones_, which hinge on the _quadrate _bone of the skull and the _angular_ bone of the jaw. In mammals, however, the lower jaw is comprised of only one bone - the _dentary_, which hinges at the _quadrate_ of the skull. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the _malleus_, _incus_ and _stapes_ (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). In reptiles, there is only one bone - the _stapes_. The reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the _occipital condyle_. In mammals, the occipital condyle is "double-faced". The classic reptilian skull also has a small hole, or "third eye" through which the pineal body extends - a trait not found in any known mammal.
> 
> This brings us to the synapsid reptiles. Like mammals, they have a single, lower temporal fenestra. Already this makes them more akin to mammals than other reptiles, albeit with a very reptilian body; legs sprawled out, long whip-like tail, basically conical-uniformed teeth, etc.. One group of synapsid reptiles in particular, the _therapsids_, seem to break these rules and are adorned with very mammalian characteristics; in the more advanced forms, many of the bones absent in mammals were already being reduced to near extinction, and the "third eye" so small it might as well have been absent. [Romer, 1967, p. 226]
Click to expand...

You don't even know what you are trying to parrot.
A. Your post has nothing to do with the lack of evidence that species become more complex species.
B. There are a number of fossils found that have hair or feathers.

Oldest Human Hairs Found in Hyena Dung Fossil

Rare Dinosaur Find: Fossil Covered in Feathers, Skin

125-million-year-old mammal fossil reveals the early evolution of hair and spines

Fossilized Mammal From Age Of Dinosaurs Had Spiky Hair

Identification of fossil hairs in Parahyaena brunnea coprolites from Middle Pleistocene deposits at Gladysvale cave, South Africa


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really? So why don't you list them for us?*
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions _and_ with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
> 
> 
> A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
> A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
> References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
> Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
> If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.
> 
> *Contents*
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> Introduction:
> Types of transitions
> Why are there gaps?
> Predictions of creationism & evolution
> What's in this FAQ
> Timescale
> 
> Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
> Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
> Transition from fishes to first amphibians
> Transitions among amphibians
> Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
> Transitions among reptiles
> Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
> Transition from reptiles to first birds
> *Reality.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
Click to expand...

And how many different colors do cats appear in? Dogs? They can all interbreed, as we can, and thus are all the same species, or very closely related species, like we and Neanderthals. Give it up, WM, you are simply revealing your abysmal ignorance as to what evolution is and how it operates.


----------



## Weatherman2020

How about soft tissue being found in a "68 million year old" fossil?

The spin on how soft tissue could have survived 68 million years?

It had a lot of iron in it.  

Soft tissue found on T. Rex explained


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species transitioning into other species.  A 66 million year old fossil of a fish looks just like a fish swimming around today, a 35 million year old fossil of a sea turtle looks just like a sea turtle swimming around today.
> 
> 
> 
> Superficially, perhaps...but they're not the same. The Coelacanth today is as related to the 66 million fossil as a poodle is to a sabre tooth tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your evidence of that is?
> And even if true, means nothing because it is still a Coelacanth.  Just as people are diverse, it does not mean we are different species going in different directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Coelacanths are NOT the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coelacanths are still Coelacanths.
> Are these different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many different colors do cats appear in? Dogs? They can all interbreed, as we can, and thus are all the same species, or very closely related species, like we and Neanderthals. Give it up, WM, you are simply revealing your abysmal ignorance as to what evolution is and how it operates.
Click to expand...


Says the dufus who parrots irrelevant nonsense.  
Horse and a zebra can interbreed, yet ............


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since we cannot go back in time, there is nothing you would accept as evidence of a new species developing from a previously existing one.
> 
> However, having a species appear in the fossil record with very similar traits, except for some new trait, in the same area the other species existed, is evidence.   Certainly more evidence than ID provides.
> 
> Your adamant insistence that there is "no evidence" is laughable, considering the Theory of Evolution provides far more evidence than does the Intelligent design ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am all about evidence.  And fossils of species dated millions of years ago looking just like they do today is pretty damning evidence.
> You haven't randomly changed some code in your Windows 10 software yet to see how it improves, why not?  Because you know it does not work that way.  Nature moves towards erosion, not towards order.  There is nothing in any law or theory of physics that says an explosion will end up creating Mozart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly not "all about evidence".   You are all about demanding evidence for evolution.  But when it comes to intelligent design, you are perfectly willing to accept things with zero evidence.
> 
> The number of species with fossil evidence from millions of years ago to the present, showing no changes at all is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Your insistence that evolution includes an explosion is just another example of your lack of knowledge about what is and isn't evolution.  It is ridiculous to use it as a description, just like it was ridiculous to use the idea that evolution claimed molten lava became Beethoven.
> 
> 
> But since evidence has been offered in support of evolution, please offer evidence supporting intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare I ask for evidence to support a scientific theory.
> Mathematical probabilities, biology, and physics all point to the only alternative to evolution of the species - intelligent design.
> 
> And I can't blame you for not wanting to side with what they teach kids in all the public schools about the creation of the universe and life, it is simply absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sheesh. Look, you Goddamned lying little cretin, we have the entire fossil record with more fossils being found daily. And we have the map of our DNA and that of other living creatures, which demonstrate our relationship to all life on earth. That is profound evidence. And your little mythology has no more evidence than does that of any primitive tribal mythology.
Click to expand...


We all have DNA so it is true! 
You sound just like the idiot moonbat jurors in the OJ case.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The differences are a lot greater, and at a genetic level as well.
> 
> But you're still tap-dancing.
> How do you explain the thousands of extinct species of plants and animals and the thousands of current species not found millions of years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
Click to expand...

You have answered nothing. All you have done is flapped yap, and never addressed how come ID would bother with creating all these different species over time, rather than just creating what we see today. Is your Deity so new at creating things that it needed practice? And why the progress from single celled life to multi-celled? Why did not your Deity just create life as we know it, and be done with it?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you claim to have the genetic material from a 66 million year old fossil?  And you say I am tap dancing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have answered nothing. All you have done is flapped yap, and never addressed how come ID would bother with creating all these different species over time, rather than just creating what we see today. Is your Deity so new at creating things that it needed practice? And why the progress from single celled life to multi-celled? Why did not your Deity just create life as we know it, and be done with it?
Click to expand...

There you go again, parrot, parrot, parrot.

I have shown a number of fossils of creatures that after "millions of years" are identical to what we have around today.  Creatures that were all created at once.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered my very simple question.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
Click to expand...

Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
Click to expand...

That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
Click to expand...

Even in our own line, Hominidae, we have many transistional fossils, and are finding more every year.


----------



## Vastator

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
Click to expand...

Categorically wrong. Get some education.

Darwin was Right | Ring Species


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Ever see how DNA replicates?  It does not exist by random chance.  It uses tools.  Friggen tools.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
Click to expand...

No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.


----------



## Vastator

Weatherman2020 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorance on a stunning level.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
Click to expand...

Your level of ignorance is astounding in relation to your willingness to discuss this issue. Read more. Leave educating the masses to people who have actually educated themselves on the issue.

What can 'ring species' teach us about evolution?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Vastator said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is thinking chaos naturally becomes order
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your definition of ignorance.   You have demanded evidence of evolution, then tried to ridicule every bit.  When, obviously, your knowledge of the Theory of Evolution is slim, at best.
> 
> And then you have the audacity to suggest intelligent design?   ID has absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up.   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> In fact, alien landings and UFOs have more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when ID is brought up to your ilk, and you can't even acknowledge the possibility of it, yet you stick to your theory of evolution that has more holes in it than an Iranian submarine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Species have changed over time. That's a fact...there are many species that did not exist millions of years ago and there are species that did exist then that no longer exist, BUT there are clear similarities between some extinct and current species.  Evolution explains how this happened.  You obviously think there are too many holes. Ok. fine.
> 
> What do you think better explains these changes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is zero evidence of any species becoming another species.  Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Categorically wrong. Get some education.
> 
> Darwin was Right | Ring Species
Click to expand...

What are you parroting?  A bird remaining a bird and a lizard remaining a lizard mean nothing but validate the OP.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever see how DNA replicates?  It does not exist by random chance.
Click to expand...

Ever see a mutation? Random chance is involved in DNA replication. In most cases to the detriment of the creature involved. In most cases, however, there are enough cases where it gives an advantage to the resulting organism that evolution takes place.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is why the creatures and plants we have today exist in the fossils found.  Their lack of evolving proves evolution.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even in our own line, Hominidae, we have many transistional fossils, and are finding more every year.
Click to expand...

No, we have an ape like creature that has since become extinct.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever see how DNA replicates?  It does not exist by random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever see a mutation? Random chance is involved in DNA replication. In most cases to the detriment of the creature involved. In most cases, however, there are enough cases where it gives an advantage to the resulting organism that evolution takes place.
Click to expand...

Go randomly change some code in your Windows 10 software and let me know how mutations benefit things.

No comment about the "68 million year old" soft tissue?  Oops.  Doesn't fit the narrative.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you answered my question on yet on what are the possibilities for life existing yet? Did I miss your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
Click to expand...


So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
Click to expand...


So much for the "open scientific mind"!!


----------



## Weatherman2020

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much for the "open scientific mind"!!
Click to expand...

To remove evolution would destroy their ability to deny the existence of a Supreme Creator.  That is why they close their minds and ignore the evidence in front of their faces.


----------



## pinqy

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
 Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.

But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?




> This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  .


 How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much for the "open scientific mind"!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To remove evolution would destroy their ability to deny the existence of a Supreme Creator.  That is why they close their minds and ignore the evidence in front of their faces.
Click to expand...


So tens of thousands of people work to maintain this theory of evolution, just so they can deny the existence of a Supreme Creator?    lmao

Wow.   Here I thought it was about the science.  You claim it is about persecution of people of faith?


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
Click to expand...


If you want to believe in ID, go right ahead.  But Weatherboy is insistent that we discuss what is taught in schools in science classes.   ID does not fit the criteria for inclusion in science class.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> 
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much for the "open scientific mind"!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To remove evolution would destroy their ability to deny the existence of a Supreme Creator.  That is why they close their minds and ignore the evidence in front of their faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tens of thousands of people work to maintain this theory of evolution, just so they can deny the existence of a Supreme Creator?    lmao
> 
> Wow.   Here I thought it was about the science.  You claim it is about persecution of people of faith?
Click to expand...

No persecution.  Simply a psychological aspect of why you wish to remain with your head in the sand.  People of faith could care less what you think as long as you are at least aware of the truth and have decided to ignore it.

Such as my post on the soft tissue found in the T-Rex fossil, the spinning to deny the obvious is actually hilarious.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in ID, go right ahead.  But Weatherboy is insistent that we discuss what is taught in schools in science classes.   ID does not fit the criteria for inclusion in science class.
Click to expand...

There you go with your tunnel vision again, head in the sand because you don't want to hear it.
What do you think Evangelical Christian Sir Isaac Newton would have said about you saying God does not belong in a science class?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive.









.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .




Thinking about it thankgod for cavemen burning fossil fuel 100,000s of years ago and creating global warming we would of froze to death with no fur... 


Evolution is bullshit in humans.... It doesn't make sense to devolve.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about it thankgod for cavemen burning fossil fuel 100,000s of years ago and creating global warming we would of froze to death with no fur...
> 
> 
> Evolution is bullshit in humans.... It doesn't make sense to devolve.
Click to expand...

Actually it is more logical and scientific to devolve.  Nature wants to erode, it does not make things more complex.  Think about birth defects in humans.  When in history has someone had a birth defect that was advantages over regular humans?  It does not happen.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much for the "open scientific mind"!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To remove evolution would destroy their ability to deny the existence of a Supreme Creator.  That is why they close their minds and ignore the evidence in front of their faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tens of thousands of people work to maintain this theory of evolution, just so they can deny the existence of a Supreme Creator?    lmao
> 
> Wow.   Here I thought it was about the science.  You claim it is about persecution of people of faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No persecution.  Simply a psychological aspect of why you wish to remain with your head in the sand.  People of faith could care less what you think *as long as you are at least aware of the truth and have decided to ignore it*.
> 
> Such as my post on the soft tissue found in the T-Rex fossil, the spinning to deny the obvious is actually hilarious.
Click to expand...


So evolution is ok, as long as we believe what you want us to believe, and we admit we believe and are ignoring it??   LMAO!!

Of course you care what we believe.  Why else would you spend hours on threads like this one?


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in ID, go right ahead.  But Weatherboy is insistent that we discuss what is taught in schools in science classes.   ID does not fit the criteria for inclusion in science class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go with your tunnel vision again, head in the sand because you don't want to hear it.
> What do you think Evangelical Christian Sir Isaac Newton would have said about you saying God does not belong in a science class?
Click to expand...


I don't care what he would have said.  Since he died in 82 years before Charles Darwin was born, and had little or no training in biology, he would have nothing to offer.  He was an unorthodox Christian.  If I remember correctly, he rejected the idea of the Trinity or something?

A science class requires that there, at least, be evidence of something.   There is a thing called The Scientific Method.  If it does not fit that, it is not science, in the strictest sense.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about it thankgod for cavemen burning fossil fuel 100,000s of years ago and creating global warming we would of froze to death with no fur...
> 
> 
> Evolution is bullshit in humans.... It doesn't make sense to devolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is more logical and scientific to devolve.  Nature wants to erode, it does not make things more complex.  Think about birth defects in humans.  When in history has someone had a birth defect that was advantages over regular humans?  It does not happen.
Click to expand...


Most mutations are harmful.   I have no denied that.   However, you certainly cannot speak to all mutations.

And while on the topic of mutations, there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that determines what the source of the mutation is.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about it thankgod for cavemen burning fossil fuel 100,000s of years ago and creating global warming we would of froze to death with no fur...
> 
> 
> Evolution is bullshit in humans.... It doesn't make sense to devolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is more logical and scientific to devolve.  Nature wants to erode, it does not make things more complex.  Think about birth defects in humans.  When in history has someone had a birth defect that was advantages over regular humans?  It does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most mutations are harmful.   I have no denied that.   However, you certainly cannot speak to all mutations.
> 
> And while on the topic of mutations, there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that determines what the source of the mutation is.
Click to expand...


You hit the nail on the head.  The individuals and companies which stand to make a fortune with mutations support evolution and continue to use science to mislead.  The people who follow their lead will shorten their lives I'm afraid.  Just yesterday, I read about this mutated food.  Just look at how they promote it.  The atheists and liberals will just eat it up (pun intended).

"A Bay Area food-technology startup says it has successfully developed the world’s first chicken strip grown from self-reproducing cells without so much as ruffling a feather.

And it pretty much tastes like chicken, according to people who were offered samples Tuesday in San Francisco, before a planned big reveal on Wednesday by Memphis Meats Inc.

Scientists, startups and animal-welfare activists believe the new product could help to revolutionize the roughly $200 billion U.S. meat industry. Their goal: Replace billions of cattle, hogs and chickens with animal meat they say can be grown more efficiently and humanely in stainless steel bioreactor tanks."

Startup to serve up chicken strips cultivated from cells in lab

There's already beef, duck and pig in-vitro meat.  I think goat, too.

Look at how all this was promoted years ago.  It's got evolution all over it.  It's a in-between step before Soylent Green I figure ha ha.

Eight Ways In-Vitro Meat will Change Our Lives - h+ Media


----------



## LTCArmyRet

pinqy said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
Click to expand...


It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in ID, go right ahead.  But Weatherboy is insistent that we discuss what is taught in schools in science classes.   ID does not fit the criteria for inclusion in science class.
Click to expand...


I would disagree.   Faith and science can co-exist.  Homo Sapien has been on this earth for how long? Just under 2 million years according to the most generous of estimates.  The earth is commonly thought to be 4-4.5 billion years old.  Correct?  Homo erectus (our fore fathers according to scientists), around 10 million or less.

According to the bible, man was created on God's sixth day.  The solar system, day and night, the plants, the animals all before that.  This all coincides with what scientists tell us as well.  How long is a day to God?  I don't know, do you?


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
Click to expand...


Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in ID, go right ahead.  But Weatherboy is insistent that we discuss what is taught in schools in science classes.   ID does not fit the criteria for inclusion in science class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would disagree.   Faith and science can co-exist.  Homo Sapien has been on this earth for how long? Just under 2 million years according to the most generous of estimates.  The earth is commonly thought to be 4-4.5 billion years old.  Correct?  Homo erectus (our fore fathers according to scientists), around 10 million or less.
> 
> According to the bible, man was created on God's sixth day.  The solar system, day and night, the plants, the animals all before that.  This all coincides with what scientists tell us as well.  How long is a day to God?  I don't know, do you?
Click to expand...


If it was all created at the same time, dinosaurs and man would have co-existed.  There is no evidence they did and plenty of evidence that they did not.  

I do not disagree that faith and science can co-exist.    But they are not the same thing.   Just like biology should not be taught in a religious studies class, ID should not be taught in science classes.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that is why the creatures and plants we have today exist in the fossils found.  Their lack of evolving proves evolution.
Click to expand...

Really? OK, link me to the find of a Cretaceous cow.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You brought it.   You claimed it was the better theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:
> Panspermia,
> Old Earth Creationism
> Young Earth Creationism
> Scientific Creationism
> All other Creation myths/theories
> Theistic Evolution
> Abiogenesis
> 
> Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species.  Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even in our own line, Hominidae, we have many transistional fossils, and are finding more every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we have an ape like creature that has since become extinct.
Click to expand...

Silly ass, you are an ape like creature. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not missed my answer.   It is irrelevant to the question I asked you.  I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one.  I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> *Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in evolution, I accept the overwhelming evidence for it. And if you wish to believe otherwise, that is your right. Just don't try to teach it as science.


----------



## Old Rocks

Weatherman2020 said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is very unscientific of you. Just because a theory does not exist does not mean one must selected just to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, silly ass, the theory of evolution is the most rock solid of all scientific theories. Since the 'Origin' was written, everything we have found, from transitional fossils to our very DNA has confirmed that theory. Your denial means nothing at all. You are absolutely nobody in this debate. You bring no valid argument to the debate, and have demonstrated vast ignorance about the points involved in the debate, a debate settled before you or I were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much for the "open scientific mind"!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To remove evolution would destroy their ability to deny the existence of a Supreme Creator.  That is why they close their minds and ignore the evidence in front of their faces.
Click to expand...

WM, you are one ignorant fruit loop. 


"The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand"


----------



## LTCArmyRet

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
Click to expand...


If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in evolution, I accept the overwhelming evidence for it. And if you wish to believe otherwise, that is your right. Just don't try to teach it as science.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that evolution is the stand alone answer, I accept the overwhelming evidence of it.  If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your right.  Just don't expect to believe all of your unproven theories.


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in ID, go right ahead.  But Weatherboy is insistent that we discuss what is taught in schools in science classes.   ID does not fit the criteria for inclusion in science class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would disagree.   Faith and science can co-exist.  Homo Sapien has been on this earth for how long? Just under 2 million years according to the most generous of estimates.  The earth is commonly thought to be 4-4.5 billion years old.  Correct?  Homo erectus (our fore fathers according to scientists), around 10 million or less.
> 
> According to the bible, man was created on God's sixth day.  The solar system, day and night, the plants, the animals all before that.  This all coincides with what scientists tell us as well.  How long is a day to God?  I don't know, do you?
Click to expand...

You need to do more research, your dates are woefully wrong.

Human Evolution 101


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
Click to expand...

No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in ID, go right ahead.  But Weatherboy is insistent that we discuss what is taught in schools in science classes.   ID does not fit the criteria for inclusion in science class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would disagree.   Faith and science can co-exist.  Homo Sapien has been on this earth for how long? Just under 2 million years according to the most generous of estimates.  The earth is commonly thought to be 4-4.5 billion years old.  Correct?  Homo erectus (our fore fathers according to scientists), around 10 million or less.
> 
> According to the bible, man was created on God's sixth day.  The solar system, day and night, the plants, the animals all before that.  This all coincides with what scientists tell us as well.  How long is a day to God?  I don't know, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to do more research, your dates are woefully wrong.
> 
> Human Evolution 101
Click to expand...


may be you should read some actual research instead of articles.

The time frame for the evolution of the genus _Homo_ out of the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor is roughly 10 to 2 million years ago, that of _H. sapiens_out of _Homo erectus_ roughly 1.8 to 0.2 million years ago

 Green, R. E.; Krause, J; Ptak, S. E.; Briggs, A. W.; Ronan, M. T.; Simons, J. F.; et al. (2006). _Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA_. Nature. pp. 16, 330–336


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
Click to expand...



So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.


----------



## pinqy

bear513 said:


> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive..


The principle is "survival of the fittest," not "survival of the strongest." Our ancestors may not have been stronger, but they were smarter and probably had other advantages. So strength was not as important, protection of fur was not necessary, and those weaker and less hairy could survive just as well.


----------



## pinqy

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.


----------



## Wyatt earp

pinqy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive..
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is "survival of the fittest," not "survival of the strongest." Our ancestors may not have been stronger, but they were smarter and probably had other advantages. So strength was not as important, protection of fur was not necessary, and those weaker and less hairy could survive just as well.
Click to expand...



So you trying to fucking tell me they were born with an IQ  100 times more?


I call bullshit it would of have to have evolved.... They would of needed strength to survive and attract the mates...


How many pink , skinny and weak damn tigers,  bears or lions you see in the wild?


----------



## pinqy

bear513 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive..
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is "survival of the fittest," not "survival of the strongest." Our ancestors may not have been stronger, but they were smarter and probably had other advantages. So strength was not as important, protection of fur was not necessary, and those weaker and less hairy could survive just as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you trying to fucking tell me they were born with an IQ  100 times more?
Click to expand...

Y


bear513 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive..
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is "survival of the fittest," not "survival of the strongest." Our ancestors may not have been stronger, but they were smarter and probably had other advantages. So strength was not as important, protection of fur was not necessary, and those weaker and less hairy could survive just as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you trying to fucking tell me they were born with an IQ  100 times more?
Click to expand...

No. How could you think I was trying to tell you that?




> I call bullshit it would of have to have evolved...


"would of have to?"  Is English not your native language?  That would explain some things.

Any way, yes of course they evolved. That's what I was saying. Were you thinking on hairy, les intelligent ancestor just suddenly gave birth to a modern human?  That's ridiculous. The change took millions of years.




> They would of needed strength to survive and attract the mates...


 No, they needed any qualities that would help them survive and attract mates. Strength and intelligence would work best. But standing upright, using tools, and strength isn't as important.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

pinqy said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
Click to expand...


old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Now just how did you get that kind of nonsense out of what I said? Adaptation to environment is over many, many generations. And if the environments change too rapidly, those are times of extinction.


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enquiring minds still want to know how a furry creature strong as hell could devolve into a weak,  pink creature in the wild and survive.... Never makes sense, muchless trying to compete for a mate in the wilderness it goes against all the rules of the strongest survive..
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is "survival of the fittest," not "survival of the strongest." Our ancestors may not have been stronger, but they were smarter and probably had other advantages. So strength was not as important, protection of fur was not necessary, and those weaker and less hairy could survive just as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you trying to fucking tell me they were born with an IQ  100 times more?
> 
> 
> I call bullshit it would of have to have evolved.... They would of needed strength to survive and attract the mates...
> 
> 
> How many pink , skinny and weak damn tigers,  bears or lions you see in the wild?
Click to expand...

Our weak, non-hairy ancestors killed many of those strong tigers, bears, and lions with spears and traps. And the very strong that tried to attack those animals directly died, the smart ones that used their brains survived and had descendants.


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps might evolve into a creature similar to us.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
> 
> 
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
Click to expand...



*MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
Click to expand...

You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
Click to expand...


He probably used the word "might" because there is no sure way to be positive.   Anyone who claims differently is lying.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He probably used the word "might" because there is no sure way to be positive.   Anyone who claims differently is lying.
Click to expand...


Thank you for making my point!


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by that premise, if we start taking chimps at birth, teach them to speak, read, write, wear clothes, eventually they will become human?  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.
Click to expand...



So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He probably used the word "might" because there is no sure way to be positive.   Anyone who claims differently is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point!
Click to expand...


If that was your point, you wasted your time.   No one, at least no one with any biology training, would say there was definitive proof.


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks so. Nobody is saying that's possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
Click to expand...


You don't know for sure either.  

But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> old rocks did, given the right environment, a chimp will evolve into man.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
Click to expand...


The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not. Given the right environment, a million of generations of chimps *might* evolve into a creature similar to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
Click to expand...


No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?


----------



## LTCArmyRet

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
Click to expand...


Yeah, the gaps that exist in the evolution theory.  I'm not saying evolution has not occurred, it's just not the complete answer.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "still a theory?"  There's nothing else for it to be. Surely you know that theories don't become "laws," right?
> Now, it is considered a fact that species do change over time. The exact mechanics are not understood completely.  And older theories such as Lamarckism and parts of Darwin's original theory have been proven wrong.
> 
> But is understanding something completely necessary for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?  I mean you can _believe_ whatever you want, but that doesn't make it supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supportable.  Just because you choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't make it the only possible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?    Can you offer any evidence in support of ID?    I mean, besides "Evolution is wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes today?  wouldn't they have evolved too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Evolution involves adaptation to a changing environment. If a creature is doing well in a certain environment, then it will mostly likely not evolve, unless forced too by competition for it's niche.
Click to expand...

No one denies a moth may turn whiter over time to adapt to its environment.  But as the fossil records show, after 120 million years we still have moths because a moth will always be a moth.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MIGHT?  MIGHT?*  So you admit that evolution has holes in it!!  And do you KNOW what that environment is???
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
Click to expand...

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you already.  You can't see the trees through the forest.
> 
> Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution.  You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the topic is evolution.  Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that there *could be* something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution?  Bottom line:  evolution is still a theory, a best guess.  Which means we still do not understand completely.  This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet.  You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in evolution, I accept the overwhelming evidence for it. And if you wish to believe otherwise, that is your right. Just don't try to teach it as science.
Click to expand...

You also believe in the manmade Gorebal Warming myth too.  You just swallow whatever they feed you without question.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
Click to expand...


If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
Click to expand...

Dark Matter.
No one has seen it.
It only exists because we say it has to to make everything we see going on in the universe fit our thinking.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know either.  You *ASSUME* that evolution is fact, it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
Click to expand...

Nature cannot create machines on its own.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dark Matter.
> No one has seen it.
> It only exists because we say it has to to make everything we see going on in the universe fit our thinking.
Click to expand...


They see the gravitational effects on other objects.  That is solid evidence that it exists.

You cannot see wind either.  But only an idiot would say it does not exists because you cannot see it.  Science does not require that things be visible to the naked eye.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure either.
> 
> But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
Click to expand...


That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
Click to expand...

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.


To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.   As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want.   But ID does not fit the parameters of science.  Therefore, has no place in science class.
> 
> Also, there are facts that support Evolution.   Are there facts that support ID?
> 
> 
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
Click to expand...


So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
Click to expand...

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex.  It defies the laws of nature to do so.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.
> 
> You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex.  It defies the laws of nature to do so.
Click to expand...


Sickle cell anemia.   While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria.  It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid.  Nothing major.


Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?

Can you provide any evidence to support ID?


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.
> 
> You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex.  It defies the laws of nature to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sickle cell anemia.   While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria.  It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?
> 
> Can you provide any evidence to support ID?
Click to expand...

Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect?  Please.

Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> 
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.
> 
> You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex.  It defies the laws of nature to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sickle cell anemia.   While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria.  It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?
> 
> Can you provide any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect?  Please.
> 
> Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
> Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease
Click to expand...


People with the sickle cell gene from one parent, but not the other, do not have sickle cell anemia, and have a strong resistance to malaria.

So yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.
> 
> You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex.  It defies the laws of nature to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sickle cell anemia.   While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria.  It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?
> 
> Can you provide any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect?  Please.
> 
> Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
> Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with the sickle cell gene from one parent, but not the other, do not have sickle cell anemia, and have a strong resistance to malaria.
> 
> So yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.
Click to expand...

You can inform the 200,000 that will die from sickle cell this year.


----------



## WinterBorn

Here are 4 beneficial mutations.  (one I have already mentioned)

from:  4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now

*"Beneficial mutation #1: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano*

Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

*Beneficial mutation #2:* *Increased bone density*

One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can _amplify_ its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

*Beneficial mutation #3:* *Malaria resistance*

The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

*Beneficial mutation #4:* *Tetrachromatic vision*

Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, _shifts_ the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."



Now, how about my question?   You can answer it.   If you do I will continue.  But the idea that you expect answers from others, while refusing to answer their questions is ridiculous and hypocritical.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.
> 
> You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex.  It defies the laws of nature to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sickle cell anemia.   While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria.  It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?
> 
> Can you provide any evidence to support ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect?  Please.
> 
> Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
> Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with the sickle cell gene from one parent, but not the other, do not have sickle cell anemia, and have a strong resistance to malaria.
> 
> So yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can inform the 200,000 that will die from sickle cell this year.
Click to expand...


If you would actually READ what I said, it would prevent you from looking so stupid.

The adaptation is with a single gene from the parents, not a gene from both.   So the benefit is there, and they do not have sickle cell.

Also, in the link to 4 beneficial mutations, it says:  "Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. *People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease."*


----------



## LTCArmyRet

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID does not fit the parameters of science?
> So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
> Science does not work that way.
> 
> And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it.  He knows bigoted views are unscientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
Click to expand...


That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it".  May I suggest you look up the definition of faith. 

You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID.  You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID.  I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.


----------



## WinterBorn

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it".  May I suggest you look up the definition of faith.
> 
> You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID.  You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID.  I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.
Click to expand...


Your assumption that I do not have faith is noted.   I have not said that at all.  Just that I do not elieve it should be part of a science class.

Despite what you may wish, there IS solid evidence supporting the theory of evolution.  There is none supporting intelligent design.

Oh, and you and Weatherman don't have any problem demanding proof for evolution.  But panic when the same is expected of ID.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.
> 
> You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex.  It defies the laws of nature to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sickle cell anemia.   While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria.  It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid.  Nothing major.
> 
> 
> Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?
> 
> Can you provide any evidence to support ID?
Click to expand...

Sickle Cell Anemia is not a mutation.  It is latent code that already exists in DNA. It becomes more dominant in people who live in high malaria areas, such as blacks.  Just as a white moth in preindustrial London became a brown moth later - the brown latent code became dominant because the white moths became easy prey.  But the code of both is still there.
DNA has all of the information necessary to direct the growth of an organism.  There is great variation allowed that causes differences, it is why we do not look alike.  A mutation is a deficient transmission of data that ALWAYS results in a more disordered structure.  Mutations are very rare, but when they do occur it is always in the direction of degeneration.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741



We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> Here are 4 beneficial mutations.  (one I have already mentioned)
> 
> from:  4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now
> 
> *"Beneficial mutation #1: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano*
> 
> Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #2:* *Increased bone density*
> 
> One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can _amplify_ its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #3:* *Malaria resistance*
> 
> The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #4:* *Tetrachromatic vision*
> 
> Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, _shifts_ the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."
> 
> 
> 
> Now, how about my question?   You can answer it.   If you do I will continue.  But the idea that you expect answers from others, while refusing to answer their questions is ridiculous and hypocritical.



When creationists discuss mutations, we are talking about RANDOM mutations and not specific or environment-based mutations.  Regardless, no new genetic information is added to the article's examples.  Evos like to think all genetic variations come from mutations when this isn't the case.  They often ignore other sources of genetic variation such as genetic recombination, natural genetic engineering and gene transference.

As an example of mutations being harmful is the case of Michael Phelps, the multi-Olympic gold medal winner is swimming.

"Phelps has a number of fortuitous physical endowments that have enabled him to dominate like no other. Simply put, he is the perfect swimmer.

Here's what Phelps has going for him:

Most people have a wingspan that matches their height. Not Phelps. He may be 6'4" tall, but his arms extend outward to a total of 6'7".
The average shoe size for a person the size of Phelps is 12; he wears a size 14 which gives him a 10% advantage over the competition.

He also has a larger than average hand size which allows him to move more water.

Phelps is double-jointed in the chest area; this enables him to extend his arms higher above his head and pull down at an angle that increases his efficiency through the water by as much as 20%; this also allows him to have quicker starts and turns.
He has proportionately short legs relative to his long, powerful trunk; this large upper body is the engine that powers his long arms. Moreover, his unique physique reduces drag through the water and allows for maximum propulsion.
Phelps has a greater-than-average lung capacity allowing him to execute his underwater dolphin kicks longer than the competition.
He has a genetic advantage that cause his muscles to produce 50% less lactic acid than other athletes. This means he can work at higher work loads for longer periods.

With a low body fat of 4%, he is better able to convert his effort into speed.
Looking at this list it's as if Phelps was designed to swim."

Sentient Developments: Michael Phelps: The 'natural' transhuman athlete

However, his being double-jointed is a type of skeletal mutation and one that could cause a major problem in his future such as Marfan syndrome.  Then again, it may not be a random mutation in that he was gifted through genetic recombination or gene trasference.


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
Click to expand...

Why does the left hate science?

Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.

And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.


----------



## Weatherman2020

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are 4 beneficial mutations.  (one I have already mentioned)
> 
> from:  4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now
> 
> *"Beneficial mutation #1: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano*
> 
> Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #2:* *Increased bone density*
> 
> One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can _amplify_ its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #3:* *Malaria resistance*
> 
> The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #4:* *Tetrachromatic vision*
> 
> Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, _shifts_ the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."
> 
> 
> 
> Now, how about my question?   You can answer it.   If you do I will continue.  But the idea that you expect answers from others, while refusing to answer their questions is ridiculous and hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When creationists discuss mutations, we are talking about RANDOM mutations and not specific or environment-based mutations.  Regardless, no new genetic information is added to the article's examples.  Evos like to think all genetic variations come from mutations when this isn't the case.  They often ignore other sources of genetic variation such as genetic recombination, natural genetic engineering and gene transference.
> 
> As an example of mutations being harmful is the case of Michael Phelps, the multi-Olympic gold medal winner is swimming.
> 
> "Phelps has a number of fortuitous physical endowments that have enabled him to dominate like no other. Simply put, he is the perfect swimmer.
> 
> Here's what Phelps has going for him:
> 
> Most people have a wingspan that matches their height. Not Phelps. He may be 6'4" tall, but his arms extend outward to a total of 6'7".
> The average shoe size for a person the size of Phelps is 12; he wears a size 14 which gives him a 10% advantage over the competition.
> 
> He also has a larger than average hand size which allows him to move more water.
> 
> Phelps is double-jointed in the chest area; this enables him to extend his arms higher above his head and pull down at an angle that increases his efficiency through the water by as much as 20%; this also allows him to have quicker starts and turns.
> He has proportionately short legs relative to his long, powerful trunk; this large upper body is the engine that powers his long arms. Moreover, his unique physique reduces drag through the water and allows for maximum propulsion.
> Phelps has a greater-than-average lung capacity allowing him to execute his underwater dolphin kicks longer than the competition.
> He has a genetic advantage that cause his muscles to produce 50% less lactic acid than other athletes. This means he can work at higher work loads for longer periods.
> 
> With a low body fat of 4%, he is better able to convert his effort into speed.
> Looking at this list it's as if Phelps was designed to swim."
> 
> Sentient Developments: Michael Phelps: The 'natural' transhuman athlete
> 
> However, his being double-jointed is a type of skeletal mutation and one that could cause a major problem in his future such as Marfan syndrome.  Then again, it may not be a random mutation in that he was gifted through genetic recombination or gene trasference.
Click to expand...

Those are not genetic mutations he listed. They are submissive genes that already exist becoming dominant.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
Click to expand...

You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu

Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun

Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that is part of the process?  If a person from Miami moves to the Arctic they are going to be cold but eventually get used to it.  Maybe even their body will start the evolution process.  It happened with the lizards.  It probably happens quicker with them but it would happen to us too.  

I say stick your head under water until you can breath water.  Don't stop until you can.


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
Click to expand...

OMG, a twofer!  You use the long discredited "98% of all scientists" and think a high tide in one location means the worlds oceans have risen.

Hey shitforbrains, tell us how the ocean has risen in one location but not the rest of the world.  Tell us how water does that.


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you think that is part of the process?  If a person from Miami moves to the Arctic they are going to be cold but eventually get used to it.  Maybe even their body will start the evolution process.  It happened with the lizards.  It probably happens quicker with them but it would happen to us too.
> 
> I say stick your head under water until you can breath water.  Don't stop until you can.
Click to expand...

Getting use to cold is genetic mutation now!

Why does the left hate science so much?


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence.  It would certainly be a scientific discovery.
> 
> What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.
> 
> The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea.   Yes, that is an issue.  But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it".  May I suggest you look up the definition of faith.
> 
> You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID.  You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID.  I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.
Click to expand...

You must not know what a scientific theory is.  

There is evidence for evolution 
And here is evidence against intelligent design


And you may have arguments for a generic creator but not for anything written in that holy book you are carrying.  There isn't an argument in that book that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  That flaw is proof, evidence, logic and reason.  But it is full of wishful thinking and scare tactics.

And here is the answer to anything you say to me

Why there is no god


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature cannot create machines on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it".  May I suggest you look up the definition of faith.
> 
> You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID.  You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID.  I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must not know what a scientific theory is.
> 
> There is evidence for evolution
> And here is evidence against intelligent design
> 
> 
> And you may have arguments for a generic creator but not for anything written in that holy book you are carrying.  There isn't an argument in that book that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  That flaw is proof, evidence, logic and reason.  But it is full of wishful thinking and scare tactics.
> 
> And here is the answer to anything you say to me
> 
> Why there is no god
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear how water rises 12 feet in one location but not a few miles away.

If you can't answer that, explain to us how getting use to cold is a genetic mutation.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That will just be your little secret.
> 
> It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine".   The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses.  They also circulate warmth to colder regions.
> 
> 
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it".  May I suggest you look up the definition of faith.
> 
> You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID.  You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID.  I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must not know what a scientific theory is.
> 
> There is evidence for evolution
> And here is evidence against intelligent design
> 
> 
> And you may have arguments for a generic creator but not for anything written in that holy book you are carrying.  There isn't an argument in that book that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  That flaw is proof, evidence, logic and reason.  But it is full of wishful thinking and scare tactics.
> 
> And here is the answer to anything you say to me
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear how water rises 12 feet in one location but not a few miles away.
> 
> If you can't answer that, explain to us how getting use to cold is a genetic mutation.
Click to expand...


I'm no scientist.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Tasty? 

You'd have to be crazy to eat tilapia. OTOH, so much fish is identified as other than what it is, who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist.  It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.
> 
> 
> To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd.  Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages.  You cannot.  Nature only works in one way.
> 
> This is a living creature.  Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
> View attachment 118860
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have said numerous times.   The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently.  The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.
> 
> You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge.  You aren't.  You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it".  May I suggest you look up the definition of faith.
> 
> You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID.  You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID.  I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must not know what a scientific theory is.
> 
> There is evidence for evolution
> And here is evidence against intelligent design
> 
> 
> And you may have arguments for a generic creator but not for anything written in that holy book you are carrying.  There isn't an argument in that book that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  That flaw is proof, evidence, logic and reason.  But it is full of wishful thinking and scare tactics.
> 
> And here is the answer to anything you say to me
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear how water rises 12 feet in one location but not a few miles away.
> 
> If you can't answer that, explain to us how getting use to cold is a genetic mutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm no scientist.
Click to expand...

That's obvious with your laughable posts that defy science.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
Click to expand...


sealybobo, we've already had Noah's Flood, so nothing to worry about.  Remember the rainbow ha ha.


----------



## james bond

Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.


----------



## sealybobo

Ha


james bond said:


> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.


Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
Click to expand...

What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.

We are all related if you go far back enough.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Ha
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
Click to expand...


Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?

What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?

>>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.

We are all related if you go far back enough.<<

The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?
> 
> What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?
> 
> >>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.
> 
> We are all related if you go far back enough.<<
> 
> The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.
Click to expand...

 You're joking


----------



## Vandalshandle

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?
> 
> What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?
> 
> >>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.
> 
> We are all related if you go far back enough.<<
> 
> The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking
Click to expand...


No, I don't think so. I suspect that he also does not believe in the theory of gravity.....


----------



## sealybobo

Vandalshandle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?
> 
> What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?
> 
> >>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.
> 
> We are all related if you go far back enough.<<
> 
> The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think so. I suspect that he also does not believe in the theory of gravity.....
Click to expand...

I refuse to even discuss global warming with deniers same way I won't listen to people who still claim cigarettes don't cause cancer.


----------



## sealybobo

Vandalshandle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?
> 
> What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?
> 
> >>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.
> 
> We are all related if you go far back enough.<<
> 
> The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think so. I suspect that he also does not believe in the theory of gravity.....
Click to expand...


Federal Scientists' Startling Climate Report Released Before Trump Can Bury It | HuffPost


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
Click to expand...


Heh, you are simpleton on this one, sealybobo.  It's not due to global warming, but weather.  Big diff.  And you're jumping to conclusions calling us climate change DENIERS.  We have an open mind and that's why we learn more than the alt left and atheists.  We are climate change SKEPTICS.  Show us what human activity causes this and the percentage the climate has changed.  We do not want weather reports from the liar and hypocrite Al Gore.  The man is only out for himself.


----------



## james bond

Weatherman2020 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are 4 beneficial mutations.  (one I have already mentioned)
> 
> from:  4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now
> 
> *"Beneficial mutation #1: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano*
> 
> Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #2:* *Increased bone density*
> 
> One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can _amplify_ its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #3:* *Malaria resistance*
> 
> The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
> *Beneficial mutation #4:* *Tetrachromatic vision*
> 
> Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, _shifts_ the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."
> 
> 
> 
> Now, how about my question?   You can answer it.   If you do I will continue.  But the idea that you expect answers from others, while refusing to answer their questions is ridiculous and hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When creationists discuss mutations, we are talking about RANDOM mutations and not specific or environment-based mutations.  Regardless, no new genetic information is added to the article's examples.  Evos like to think all genetic variations come from mutations when this isn't the case.  They often ignore other sources of genetic variation such as genetic recombination, natural genetic engineering and gene transference.
> 
> As an example of mutations being harmful is the case of Michael Phelps, the multi-Olympic gold medal winner is swimming.
> 
> "Phelps has a number of fortuitous physical endowments that have enabled him to dominate like no other. Simply put, he is the perfect swimmer.
> 
> Here's what Phelps has going for him:
> 
> Most people have a wingspan that matches their height. Not Phelps. He may be 6'4" tall, but his arms extend outward to a total of 6'7".
> The average shoe size for a person the size of Phelps is 12; he wears a size 14 which gives him a 10% advantage over the competition.
> 
> He also has a larger than average hand size which allows him to move more water.
> 
> Phelps is double-jointed in the chest area; this enables him to extend his arms higher above his head and pull down at an angle that increases his efficiency through the water by as much as 20%; this also allows him to have quicker starts and turns.
> He has proportionately short legs relative to his long, powerful trunk; this large upper body is the engine that powers his long arms. Moreover, his unique physique reduces drag through the water and allows for maximum propulsion.
> Phelps has a greater-than-average lung capacity allowing him to execute his underwater dolphin kicks longer than the competition.
> He has a genetic advantage that cause his muscles to produce 50% less lactic acid than other athletes. This means he can work at higher work loads for longer periods.
> 
> With a low body fat of 4%, he is better able to convert his effort into speed.
> Looking at this list it's as if Phelps was designed to swim."
> 
> Sentient Developments: Michael Phelps: The 'natural' transhuman athlete
> 
> However, his being double-jointed is a type of skeletal mutation and one that could cause a major problem in his future such as Marfan syndrome.  Then again, it may not be a random mutation in that he was gifted through genetic recombination or gene trasference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not genetic mutations he listed. They are submissive genes that already exist becoming dominant.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was, but was pointing out his mutations aren't really mutations.  If you saying that what Phelps has isn't a mutation, then what do you mean by submissive genes?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?
> 
> What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?
> 
> >>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.
> 
> We are all related if you go far back enough.<<
> 
> The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think so. I suspect that he also does not believe in the theory of gravity.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal Scientists' Startling Climate Report Released Before Trump Can Bury It | HuffPost
Click to expand...


There was no hard evidence given.  When Al Gore and the hypocritical liberals live their lives as shiny examples of doing and living without putting out excessive CO2, then I'll look at it.  Else give us the hard evidence and settled science.  It's just words liberal spew from their rear ends.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh, you are simpleton on this one, sealybobo.  It's not due to global warming, but weather.  Big diff.  And you're jumping to conclusions calling us climate change DENIERS.  We have an open mind and that's why we learn more than the alt left and atheists.  We are climate change SKEPTICS.  Show us what human activity causes this and the percentage the climate has changed.  We do not want weather reports from the liar and hypocrite Al Gore.  The man is only out for himself.
Click to expand...

The scientists just released their report so Trump couldn't bury it.

And Nikki Hailey admitted it's real today.

Trump and Republicans have been lying and either you've been lying too or you've been lied to. We told you the corporate polluters were the ones lying but you said it was the scientists.

Now, even with you, we are seeing a shift. You're no longer deniers you're skeptics. I just call you global warming idiots.

You have zero credibility. I know your bullshit better than you


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?
> 
> What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?
> 
> >>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.
> 
> We are all related if you go far back enough.<<
> 
> The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think so. I suspect that he also does not believe in the theory of gravity.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal Scientists' Startling Climate Report Released Before Trump Can Bury It | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no hard evidence given.  When Al Gore and the hypocritical liberals live their lives as shiny examples of doing and living without putting out excessive CO2, then I'll look at it.  Else give us the hard evidence and settled science.  It's just words liberal spew from their rear ends.
Click to expand...

Dummy


----------



## sealybobo

The scientists have been showing us the evidence but Republicans and special interest have been denying it and Republican voters go along with everything the party says


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> The scientists have been showing us the evidence but Republicans and special interest have been denying it and Republican voters go along with everything the party says


Feel free to post all of the evidence.  Yet here on page 37 of the thread no one has been able to.


----------



## RWNJ

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
Click to expand...

That is not evolution. It's adaptation. You do know the difference, right? Do I have to explain it to you? Maybe draw you a picture?


----------



## RWNJ

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
Click to expand...

An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?


----------



## RWNJ

sealybobo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, warming like evolution, takes millions of years, if not billions, so this is just a drop in the bucket.  NYT believes in myths, just like the story of Gilgamesh ha ha.  Besides, the atheist scientists steal from the Christian scientists and this cry of catastrophism caused by global warming is just the thing.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha usually means your joking. Are you? How do you think the first birds got here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha means I'm laughing at all the people who worry about global warming and believe in evolution like Bill Nye and Al Gore.  It's based on faith and one's worldview.  Climate has always changed.  What evidence do you have that it's happening today due to human activity instead of millions of years?  Millions of years ago, there was even more warming than today, so the level of CO2 rises and falls.  And how much more water is in the ocean now than the last ice age, thousand years ago and now?
> 
> What you're afraid of is global flooding of the coastline.  What is the rate of water rising and what percentage is caused by humans?
> 
> >>What I find amazing is a long time ago there was a creature and from that creature came reptiles, amphibians, mammals birds and fish.
> 
> We are all related if you go far back enough.<<
> 
> The fossil evidence is very sketchy on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think so. I suspect that he also does not believe in the theory of gravity.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I refuse to even discuss global warming with deniers same way I won't listen to people who still claim cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Click to expand...

Fine. Take your marbles, what few you have left, and go home. No one will miss you.


----------



## RWNJ

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply from physical evidence, fossils and DNA, evolution is the sturdiest of the scientific Theories. We see the evidence for evolution in the rocks worldwide. We see our relationship to all other life on earth in the DNA of all our cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that transitional fossils should outnumber the known fossils by millions to one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the guy who believes that there is a big fairy in the sky who created everything.
Click to expand...

And atheists believe that the universe created itself. LOL!


----------



## Vandalshandle

RW, 
You know that gravity is just a theory, don't you? It doesn't really exist. We are held to the earth by a special magnet that god put into the center of the earth. it only took him one day to do it, and it happened 5,275 years ago. As for the moon, it is really just an illusion that he put there. Nobody has ever been there.


----------



## RWNJ

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
> _*The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish*_
> *
> Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS.  Want to go back and post my entire quote now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
> 
> Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
> 
> *Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
> 
> The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
> 
> If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie. *
> 
> Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my problem that you are too scared to address why you claim that a fish has existed for 66 million years- but  there are no modern human fossils that go back even 6 million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not claim it, troll.
> Go tell your mommy your diapers need changing if you can't answer why there is evidence evolution has been proven to be not true.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have better things to do than continue to reply to this idiot. I've got several pages left in this thread. Is it more of the same? If so, I'm leaving. I can only take so much of his stupidity.


----------



## sealybobo

RWNJ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
Click to expand...


Do you want to quibble about the percent?  What percent of scientists don't believe in global warming?  And show us the list of their names.


----------



## RWNJ

sealybobo said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to quibble about the percent?  What percent of scientists don't believe in global warming?  And show us the list of their names.
Click to expand...

Why bother? I'd have better luck convincing a rock that it can fly. You possess the conviction of invincable ignorance. I'm done with you. Bye, and good riddance.


----------



## sealybobo

RWNJ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
Click to expand...


An appeal to evidence.  It is so obvious that you guys have swallowed the big oil companies bullshit.  The Republicans have you brainwashed good.

So does religion.  I notice the same nuts that deny evolution in America also deny global warming.  But interesting because conservatives in Europe don't deny either.  And they are less religious there.  No coincidence that they aren't ignorant about science like you jesus freaks.


----------



## sealybobo

RWNJ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to quibble about the percent?  What percent of scientists don't believe in global warming?  And show us the list of their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother? I'd have better luck convincing a rock that it can fly. You possess the conviction of invincable ignorance. I'm done with you. Bye, and good riddance.
Click to expand...

Fuck off RWNJ  

You have the perfect name.


----------



## RWNJ

And now that I have you on ignore, I can honestly say that IGNOREance is bliss. LOL!


----------



## sealybobo

Bye loser RWNJ


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An appeal to evidence.  It is so obvious that you guys have swallowed the big oil companies bullshit.  The Republicans have you brainwashed good.
> 
> So does religion.  I notice the same nuts that deny evolution in America also deny global warming.  But interesting because conservatives in Europe don't deny either.  And they are less religious there.  No coincidence that they aren't ignorant about science like you jesus freaks.
Click to expand...

Speaking of brainwashed, why do you stick with 98% lie?

Ever wonder why Al Gores home has 30X the carbon footprint as the average American or DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles in a private jet to get an environmental award then flies home the next day, or hundreds of private jets flood the airport where a climate conference is occurring?

They don't believe their own bullshit and neither should you.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An appeal to evidence.  It is so obvious that you guys have swallowed the big oil companies bullshit.  The Republicans have you brainwashed good.
> 
> So does religion.  I notice the same nuts that deny evolution in America also deny global warming.  But interesting because conservatives in Europe don't deny either.  And they are less religious there.  No coincidence that they aren't ignorant about science like you jesus freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of brainwashed, why do you stick with 98% lie?
> 
> Ever wonder why Al Gores home has 30X the carbon footprint as the average American or DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles in a private jet to get an environmental award then flies home the next day, or hundreds of private jets flood the airport where a climate conference is occurring?
> 
> They don't believe their own bullshit and neither should you.
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha.  The lame old fucking argument that al gore burns too many light bulbs to be a global warming advocate.  Go eat a stupid dick you dumb fuck.  I thought you put me on ignore.  Please do because you are fucking retarded.


----------



## RWNJ

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An appeal to evidence.  It is so obvious that you guys have swallowed the big oil companies bullshit.  The Republicans have you brainwashed good.
> 
> So does religion.  I notice the same nuts that deny evolution in America also deny global warming.  But interesting because conservatives in Europe don't deny either.  And they are less religious there.  No coincidence that they aren't ignorant about science like you jesus freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of brainwashed, why do you stick with 98% lie?
> 
> Ever wonder why Al Gores home has 30X the carbon footprint as the average American or DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles in a private jet to get an environmental award then flies home the next day, or hundreds of private jets flood the airport where a climate conference is occurring?
> 
> They don't believe their own bullshit and neither should you.
Click to expand...

I also heard that one of Gore's carbon emitting mansions is located on a beach in Florida. He doesn't seem to be too worried about rising sea levels. Does he?


----------



## Weatherman2020

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An appeal to evidence.  It is so obvious that you guys have swallowed the big oil companies bullshit.  The Republicans have you brainwashed good.
> 
> So does religion.  I notice the same nuts that deny evolution in America also deny global warming.  But interesting because conservatives in Europe don't deny either.  And they are less religious there.  No coincidence that they aren't ignorant about science like you jesus freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of brainwashed, why do you stick with 98% lie?
> 
> Ever wonder why Al Gores home has 30X the carbon footprint as the average American or DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles in a private jet to get an environmental award then flies home the next day, or hundreds of private jets flood the airport where a climate conference is occurring?
> 
> They don't believe their own bullshit and neither should you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha.  The lame old fucking argument that al gore burns too many light bulbs to be a global warming advocate.  Go eat a stupid dick you dumb fuck.  I thought you put me on ignore.  Please do because you are fucking retarded.
Click to expand...

Your brain is still not functioning. I never said you were on ignore. 

Name one famous person that parrots the global warming myth that is actually living their lives as if it is real. 

Not one. 

Nobody believes the bullshit except a few gullible stooges like you.


----------



## Weatherman2020

RWNJ said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the left hate science?
> 
> Saying a person from Miami would have difficulty in the Alaskan tundra and saying it is genetic evolution that caused that is one of the most laughable scenarios to date.
> 
> And yes, I switched lizards to people. Just to show how ludicrous your argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree with 98% of all scientists so stfu
> 
> Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
> 
> Al Gore was talking about how Miami streets were flooded and the fish were swimming in the streets and it's due to global warming.  Are you still a denier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appeal to authority? LOL! Is that the best you can do? And that BS about 98 percent of scientists agreeing is pure bunk. It has been debunked numerous times, yet you still cling to the narrative. I have to wonder. What's in it for you? You can't honestly believe this crap, so you must have an ulterior motive. Perhaps someone is paying you to post  here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An appeal to evidence.  It is so obvious that you guys have swallowed the big oil companies bullshit.  The Republicans have you brainwashed good.
> 
> So does religion.  I notice the same nuts that deny evolution in America also deny global warming.  But interesting because conservatives in Europe don't deny either.  And they are less religious there.  No coincidence that they aren't ignorant about science like you jesus freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of brainwashed, why do you stick with 98% lie?
> 
> Ever wonder why Al Gores home has 30X the carbon footprint as the average American or DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles in a private jet to get an environmental award then flies home the next day, or hundreds of private jets flood the airport where a climate conference is occurring?
> 
> They don't believe their own bullshit and neither should you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also heard that one of Gore's carbon emitting mansions is located on a beach in Florida. He doesn't seem to be too worried about rising sea levels. Does he?
Click to expand...

None of them show any sign of concern.


----------



## sealybobo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741


You should live in Turkey

Turkey Bans the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools


----------



## pinqy

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee.  Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
> *View attachment 115740*
> 
> Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.  Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
> View attachment 115741


Similar, not "just like." The modern coelacanth is a different species from the pre-historic versions.


----------

