# More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges



## abu afak

Another Evidence of Evolution.
Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
One rarely mentioned but very telling.
Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
*An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*

Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*


Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

*Confirmation:*
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
*
Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
*
Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
[.......]

How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
`​


----------



## Freewill

All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie.  Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.

here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?


----------



## Gen0

Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science


----------



## abu afak

Freewill said:


> All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie.  Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand *that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.*  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?


Your post is Incoherent 70 IQ Gibrish.
'Survival of the fittest' is a moving target. Fittest for a Changing environment

ie, If the earth gets colder, (ie, Ice Ages), OTHER creatures will survive better and thrive and the others diminish, ADAPT or die.

Similarly, and Also contrarily to your goofy response..
Lions are stronger than antelope.
But if antelope didn't get/evolve faster and have enough babies, they would die out.. and then the Lions would too.
So there is a balance of Predator and Prey, and also Fauna and Flora/Plants that they eat.
IOW, Food and supply... that makes something "Fittest" for that ecosystem, climate, period in time.
When the climate changes, (or a meteor hits the earth) everything changes.
So what's "driving" evolution are the Vaguerys of earth's conditions and an evolutionary balance/adaptation/mutation that let's food and supply both survive/coexist.

`


----------



## Gen0

Freewill said:


> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?



When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.

I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.


----------



## Freewill

abu afak said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie.  Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand *that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.*  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is Incoherent 70 IQ Gibrish.
> 'Survival of the fittest' is a moving target. Fittest for a Changing environment
> 
> ie, If the earth gets colder, (ie, Ice Ages), OTHER creatures will survive better and thrive and the others diminish, ADAPT or die.
> 
> Similarly, and Also contrarily to your goofy response..
> Lions are stronger than antelope.
> But if antelope didn't get/evolve faster and have enough babies, they would die out.. and then the Lions would too.
> So there is a balance of Predator and Prey, and also Fauna and Flora/Plants that they eat.
> IOW, Food and supply... that makes something "Fittest" for that ecosystem, climate, period in time.
> When the climate changes, (or a meteor hits the earth) everything changes.
> So what's "driving" evolution are the Vaguerys of earth's conditions and an evolutionary balance/adaptation/mutation that let's food and supply both survive/coexist.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Since your mind is closed you mock and say nothing.


----------



## Freewill

Gen0 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.
> 
> I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
Click to expand...


Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.


----------



## abu afak

Freewill said:
			
		

> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.


DUH that's correct!

As I said just the other day to another Numb Nuts Godist:
Scientific Creationism Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

DOH!
Evolution does NOT deal with the opening spark of life. That's separate and called *"abiogenesis."*
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*Evolution deals with, and has Extensive evidence For, all changes thereafter.* That body of evidence (intermediate species, etc) Grows yearly both in Fossil remains and in new sciences like Isotopic dating, DNA, etc.​so...
You WHIFFED/showed Blinding IGNORANCE on EVERYTHING in *this* string: Evolution.

`


----------



## Old Rocks

Freewill said:


> Gen0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.
> 
> I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
Click to expand...

Mr. Freewill   Your vast ignorance is once again apparent. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary science. Therefore, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play when the chemicals start replicating in a manner that creates a unique organism, something that remains close to the same through many generations. Chemisty and physics do not operate by chance. And abiogenisis is not a matter of chance, but of the elements acting in the manner that the rules of this universe dictate.


----------



## Freewill

Old Rocks said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.
> 
> I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Freewill   Your vast ignorance is once again apparent. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary science. Therefore, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play when the chemicals start replicating in a manner that creates a unique organism, something that remains close to the same through many generations. Chemisty and physics do not operate by chance. And abiogenisis is not a matter of chance, but of the elements acting in the manner that the rules of this universe dictate.
Click to expand...


WTF you said what I said.  Nothing happens by chance, we agree.  And chemistry does not explain the creation of life and the complexity of life except to say it was chemistry.  You do understand that science is the attempt to understand the already established laws of Universe?


----------



## Freewill

abu afak said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
> 
> 
> 
> DUH that's correct!
> 
> As I said just the other day to another Numb Nuts Godist:
> Scientific Creationism Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> DOH!
> Evolution does NOT deal with the opening spark of life. That's separate and called *"abiogenesis."*
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Evolution deals with, and has Extensive evidence For, all changes thereafter.* That body of evidence (intermediate species, etc) Grows yearly both in Fossil remains and in new sciences like Isotopic dating, DNA, etc.​so...
> You WHIFFED/showed Blinding IGNORANCE on EVERYTHING in *this* string: Evolution.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Who mentioned God?  Oh right it was you and your ilk.  You have stunk up the place with the usual talking points, you have them down well.


----------



## Freewill

Gen0 said:


> Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science



There is almost no difference between a Volkswagen beetle and a dump truck.


----------



## HenryBHough

Were it not for the vestigial penis and the turkey baster there could be no liberal babies.


----------



## Old Rocks

Freewill said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.
> 
> I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Freewill   Your vast ignorance is once again apparent. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary science. Therefore, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play when the chemicals start replicating in a manner that creates a unique organism, something that remains close to the same through many generations. Chemisty and physics do not operate by chance. And abiogenisis is not a matter of chance, but of the elements acting in the manner that the rules of this universe dictate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF you said what I said.  Nothing happens by chance, we agree.  And chemistry does not explain the creation of life and the complexity of life except to say it was chemistry.  You do understand that science is the attempt to understand the already established laws of Universe?
Click to expand...

Have you ever looked at the complexity exhibited in minerals? As far as understanding what science is, I have finished courses in Geology, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics. And, yes, natural laws can and has created some very complex systems.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Don't have a tailbone for nothing.


----------



## Vikrant

Gen0 said:


> Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science



Humans are just one of the many primates that exist today. We are not similar to primates; we are in fact primates. 

---

...

Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. 

...


History Travel Arts Science People Places Smithsonian


----------



## mamooth

Freewill said:


> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?



Their genes did.

Evolution can be thought of as working at the gene level instead of the species level. That is, a species is simply a tool that genes use to produce more genes like themselves. What the genes do can be detrimental to the species, but if it's beneficial to the genes themselves, then the genes get passed on.

So, for example, say you had that species with genes for limited reproduction, so they didn't compete with each other. Eventually a mutant gene would arise that allowed for unlimited reproduction. Since there would be no competition (at first) for the offspring with that gene, they'd multiple wildly, and the fast-reproduction gene would quickly come to dominate in the population, even if it caused harm to the species as a whole. That gene doesn't "care" if it harmed the species; it only wants to reproduce itself, no matter what the cost to the species.


----------



## LittleNipper

If by evolution, you are suggesting the means by which man became man, then you are batting at the wind. There is no proof. If; however, you are suggesting that selected traits can be bred, then of course this is very true. One can breed tallness, shortness, build, hair and skin color. It might also be possible to breed an intellectual or an idiot. However, I you treat a smart child like a moron --- there is a real chance he will not reach his or her fullest potential.


----------



## Derideo_Te

LittleNipper said:


> If by evolution, you are suggesting the means by which man became man, then you are batting at the wind. There is no proof. If; however, you are suggesting that selected traits can be bred, then of course this is very true. One can breed tallness, shortness, build, hair and skin color. It might also be possible to breed an intellectual or an idiot. However, I you treat a smart child like a moron --- there is a real chance he will not reach his or her fullest potential.





Breeding is evolution!


----------



## LittleNipper

Derideo_Te said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by evolution, you are suggesting the means by which man became man, then you are batting at the wind. There is no proof. If; however, you are suggesting that selected traits can be bred, then of course this is very true. One can breed tallness, shortness, build, hair and skin color. It might also be possible to breed an intellectual or an idiot. However, I you treat a smart child like a moron --- there is a real chance he will not reach his or her fullest potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breeding is evolution!
Click to expand...

Breeding is *man*ipulation. However, a plant is a plant, a moth is a moth, a fruit fly remains a fruit fly, and bacteria stays bacteria. Each kind is unique and bound by God.


----------



## jwoodie

Please explain _exactly_ how one species can reproduce another species.  Actual examples would be helpful.  

P.S.  If you don't know, are you honest enough to admit it?


----------



## abu afak

jwoodie said:


> Please explain _exactly_ how one species can reproduce another species.  Actual examples would be helpful.
> 
> P.S.  If you don't know, are you honest enough to admit it?


Nice attempt at burden shifting which would usually require a highly technical or impossible answer.
But basically, small changes/Subspecies, become large changes over time, Species, due to successful mutation which fits better in that environment.
ie, Human Races/Subspsecies have developed many different Traits because of Separate geographical evolution. Given enough time and separate mutations/adaptations, they could become different Species.
ie, Gorillas (and chimps) have TWO species, not one. Not even all 'like' (kweationist term) creatures are the same specie.

Or Try:

*Some More Observed Speciation Events*
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/selopedpeciation

Or one of my favorites in making this understandable...
*Pygmy Mammoths, a separate Specie, evolved from Mammoths in just 30,000 years from Island Isolation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_mammoth#Evolution*
Pygmy mammoth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Do we have pictures of it happening, of course not, (Kweationists disingenuously try this burden that is much longer than human lifetimes) but it's obvious what did happen.
And of course
1. we have intermediate fossils/species for ALL extant ones.
2. None arose without them and none arose with radically different DNA. (we have 98.6% same as chimps)
3. Many/Most have anatomical Vestiges of predecessors as yet more evidence. (see the OP)
They/WE are NOT clean breaks/immaculate creations, they are almost all genetically gradual and vestigal. 
`

`


----------



## rdean

Gen0 said:


> Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science


Apes can't question things like humans can?


----------



## Derideo_Te

LittleNipper said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by evolution, you are suggesting the means by which man became man, then you are batting at the wind. There is no proof. If; however, you are suggesting that selected traits can be bred, then of course this is very true. One can breed tallness, shortness, build, hair and skin color. It might also be possible to breed an intellectual or an idiot. However, I you treat a smart child like a moron --- there is a real chance he will not reach his or her fullest potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breeding is evolution!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breeding is *man*ipulation. However, a plant is a plant, a moth is a moth, a fruit fly remains a fruit fly, and bacteria stays bacteria. Each kind is unique and bound by God.
Click to expand...


Yes, the manipulation of evolution to achieve a desired result.

The grains we eat today did not occur naturally in the wild. We have manipulated evolution to suit ourselves. Our dogs are no longer wild wolves. 

We were once tree dwellers. Prior to that we had tails. What happened to our tails that you still see on monkeys in the trees? We have vestiges of that tail and some babies are still born with tails.


----------



## rdean

Gen0 said:


> Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science


Religion was created.  Science was discovered.  Religion explains nothing.  It's only "tells".


----------



## pauls

Evolution is merely the tool for creation. Viruses have evolved into bacteria - a change in species that man has witnessed. It can be seen in the genetics of birds that they were once reptiles and by turning on and off the genes present in birds they can be returned to a reptile. Science has done some of this by manipulating the genes of a chicken to return the feathers to scales and to return the beak to a mouth with teeth. It would be possible to take a chicken egg and by turning on and off certain genes have a reptile hatch from the egg. If they did this to a male and female chicken and bred them the offspring would be reptiles.

Any first year biology student has seen evolution in viruses and bacteria. There is even a recorded history of the genetic change that causes sickle cell anemia. The biological change makes a person immune to sleeping sickness when only one gene is affected. When a person inherits one gene from each parent then they develop sickle cell anemia. The evolution has been tracked back to the original people who had the mutation. It was an evolutionary event in humans.

I see no religious conflict in accepting evolution. It is God's way of continuing creation.


----------



## abu afak

pauls said:


> Evolution is merely the tool for creation. ....
> 
> I see no religious conflict in accepting evolution. It is God's way of continuing creation.


Except you have NO evidence of any god.
ZERO.

You can't disingenuously Piggy Back on Real facts as the work of/Just say, it's your wittle god/dog.

And of course, many peoples/religions (other voodoo-ers) have many different gods with Contradictory creation MYTHS.
`


----------



## pauls

You are absolutely right. I have no evidence of God. That is where my faith comes in. science requires evidence, documentation, experiment, and finally proof. I have no problem accepting scientific facts and I can keep my faith at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can have faith in God and believe the science. No problem.


----------



## abu afak

pauls said:


> You are absolutely right. I have no evidence of God. That is where my faith comes in. science requires evidence, documentation, experiment, and finally proof. I have no problem accepting scientific facts and I can keep my faith at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can have faith in God and believe the science. No problem.


Then you have No business in THIS section.
You can post your [BASELESS] faith in any other UNRELATED section.

You could go to any section and say "God did it"/God's responsible for....." (ie, Recession)
and you'd also be WASTING everyone's time with your PISS ANT prosletyzing.

There's no god/dog in this section.
The contradiction Only arises when, in FACT, Other believers DO deny evolution, or, as you, Claim there is a god/Creator when there is NO evidence of such.


`


----------



## pauls

You don't have to believe in God. I am not trying to convert you. I am simply agreeing that evolution is a fact. The only theory involved is the manner (or manners) in which it works. Those are not yet completely understood. 

I am stating that not all people of faith hold the point of view that evolution is a fallacy. There are many who recognize it, just as you do.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Someone mentioned wolves evolving into dogs. That's called horizontal evolution. A dog can still breed with a wolf. Conversely, vertical evolution would describe the canine origins of sea lions. 

Wisdom teeth? 100,000 years ago we were hunter gatherers. As we cooked more of our food, our jaws became shorter and shorter until the wisdom teeth no longer fit. That's horizontal evolution, like wolf morphology changing radically to the point where a bulldog has breathing problems. 

Confirmation bias has led us to conclude that a lot of our morphology is vestigial. Tonsils actually have a purpose. 

"_When the human genome was decoded a decade ago, there seemed to be surprisingly few of these genes in our make-up: just over 20,000. (Most scientists had expected around 100,000.)
That represents around two per cent of our total complement of DNA. The rest was simply labelled 'junk DNA' and was assumed to have accumulated by accident during the evolution of our species. But now the Encode project has shown that much of this junk DNA actually plays a key role inside the human body. The Encode scientists have found that large stretches of junk DNA play an active role by regulating those 20,000-odd genes and controlling how they make proteins_."

Another interesting recent discovery is the surprisingly weak link between environmental causes and punctuated evolution. Some species exhibit stability through radical climate changes or resource availability. Others exhibit punctuated evolution for no apparent cause whatsoever. I'm referring to the chaos theory of evolution, or, as I like to call it, Destiny.
The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist


----------



## abu afak

Old Rocks said:


> Have you ever looked at the complexity exhibited in minerals? As far as understanding what science is, I have finished courses in Geology, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics. And, yes, natural laws can and has created some very complex systems.


Good point.
And some are so complex, there are self-replicating Non-living molecules.
+


----------



## HenryBHough

Which did God invent first?

_Reproduction_ via sex?

The orgasm?


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.,
Click to expand...

That's laughably False.
We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not 'Immaculate' or 'ID,' but Messy Mutation.
`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> LOL.  The so called expert is using circular logic. * There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate.
> We do not observe any common ancestor today.*


Let's save some time James Bond you JERK.
Rather than start a Duplicate thread, I respond with my OP and other info throughout.


Another Evidence of Evolution.
Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
One rarely mentioned but very telling.
Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
*An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*

Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*


Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

*Confirmation:*
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. 
*These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]

*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
[.......]

How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
`​


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  The so called expert is using circular logic. * There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate.
> We do not observe any common ancestor today.*
> 
> 
> 
> Let's save some tom e James Bond you JERK.
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> 
> *Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> 
> *Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]
> 
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `​
Click to expand...


.  Vestigial organs has pretty much been debunked by modern medicine.

Notice all your explanations are traced back to evolutionary thinking which is usually wrong.  It's also more circular reasoning.

Wisdom teeth impaction has been traced back to diet.  It is a recent phenomenon, having its beginnings around the Industrial Revolution in the 1700–1800s.  They didn't have any problems with wisdom teeth because their diet was more coarse.  This wore down their crown, i.e. top of their teeth, and consequently provided more space for the wisdom teeth.  The wearing down of the crown is called attrition and if it progresses enough, it creates more space in the dental arch allowing for the wisdom teeth.  We even see that today with Nigerians who have a more fibrous diet than their urban counterparts and attrition.  This causes more space in their arch and lesser wisdom impaction.  The change to lower fiber diet also reduced the need for a larger cecum and it became unnecessary.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> .  Vestigial organs has pretty much been debunked by modern medicine.


No itr hasn't.
And it certainly hasn't in hundreds of cases well beyond humans as those I posted above.
Only one of which you Goofilly to attribute to the Industrial revolution!




			
				james bond said:
			
		

> Notice all your explanations are traced back to evolutionary thinking which is usually wrong.  It's also more circular reasoning....


No "Evolutionary thinking" is NOT "usually wrong" and you have NOT demonstrated such.
(or won your Evangelical Loon Nobel Prize for doing so)
And it's certainly worse than circular reasoning to say it's wrong.

You never last more than a post or two with me.
(the last try 50 pages ago in the Monkey string)

Your debate content is wrong, worse, you're Disingenuous/Dishonest.

Now go back to Lying for Jesus (your life) with someone else kweationist klown.
`


----------



## Confounding

Abu, you should know that no amount of evidence is going to convince these retards that God didn't poof humanity into existence. It's not about an evidence threshold that needs to be met in their minds. They will just never accept it.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  Vestigial organs has pretty much been debunked by modern medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> No itr hasn't.
> And it certainly hasn't in hundreds of cases well beyond humans as those I posted above.
> Only one of which you Goofilly to attribute to the Industrial revolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice all your explanations are traced back to evolutionary thinking which is usually wrong.  It's also more circular reasoning....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No "Evolutionary thinking" is NOT "usually wrong" and you have NOT demonstrated such.
> (or won your Evangelical Loon Nobel Prize for doing so)
> And it's certainly worse than circular reasoning to say it's wrong.
> 
> You never last more than a post or two with me.
> (the last try 50 pages ago in the Monkey string)
> 
> Your debate content is wrong, worse, you're Disingenuous/Dishonest.
> 
> Now go back to Lying for Jesus (your life) with someone else kweationist klown.
> `
Click to expand...


I just smacked you and your science to oblivion using observational science while you continue to hold your silly mythological beliefs based on faith.  It's a done deal like I said.

I can't help it if you don't understand the scientific method.  You cannot explain how wisdom teeth were _not_ impacted in the past.  People had larger jaws due to the fibrous and coarser foods they ate.  Now, you're using ad hominem attacks cause I whipped your dumb butt silly.

There's a reason why dieticians advocate eating more fiber because it's a healthier diet.  Today, we eat too much sugar and processed foods that have screwed our bodies up.  Can you get that through your thick skull?  You probably think GMO foods are safe?  Ha ha.


----------



## james bond

Confounding said:


> Abu, you should know that no amount of evidence is going to convince these retards that God didn't poof humanity into existence. It's not about an evidence threshold that needs to be met in their minds. They will just never accept it.



I just used science not religion you dumb fuckasaurus.  Only a retard such as you can't tell between the science and religion forums ha ha.


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> I can't help it if you don't understand the scientific method.



You should explain how science works to all of the scientists that agree with what he's said in this thread.


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu, you should know that no amount of evidence is going to convince these retards that God didn't poof humanity into existence. It's not about an evidence threshold that needs to be met in their minds. They will just never accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used science not religion you dumb fuckasaurus.  Only a retard such as you can't tell between the science and religion forums ha ha.
Click to expand...


You just criticized Abu for using ad hominems. You should try to go 4 or 5 posts without being a hypocrite. Do you believe God zapped people into existence? Just curious. Was it with a wiggle of his nose? A magic wand maybe?

*POOF!*

Please explain it to me, man of science.


----------



## james bond

Confounding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu, you should know that no amount of evidence is going to convince these retards that God didn't poof humanity into existence. It's not about an evidence threshold that needs to be met in their minds. They will just never accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used science not religion you dumb fuckasaurus.  Only a retard such as you can't tell between the science and religion forums ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just criticized Abu for using ad hominems. You should try to go 4 or 5 posts without being a hypocrite. Do you believe God zapped people into existence? Just curious. Was it with a wiggle of his nose? A magic wand maybe?
> 
> *POOF!*
Click to expand...


You'll be burning in hell soon enough.


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu, you should know that no amount of evidence is going to convince these retards that God didn't poof humanity into existence. It's not about an evidence threshold that needs to be met in their minds. They will just never accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used science not religion you dumb fuckasaurus.  Only a retard such as you can't tell between the science and religion forums ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just criticized Abu for using ad hominems. You should try to go 4 or 5 posts without being a hypocrite. Do you believe God zapped people into existence? Just curious. Was it with a wiggle of his nose? A magic wand maybe?
> 
> *POOF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be burning in hell soon enough.
Click to expand...


If the universe really is that retarded I hope I at least get to give that fool a piece of my mind before I am ejected into hell. I could have thought up a better universe than that.


----------



## james bond

Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.  







Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii


----------



## james bond

Confounding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu, you should know that no amount of evidence is going to convince these retards that God didn't poof humanity into existence. It's not about an evidence threshold that needs to be met in their minds. They will just never accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used science not religion you dumb fuckasaurus.  Only a retard such as you can't tell between the science and religion forums ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just criticized Abu for using ad hominems. You should try to go 4 or 5 posts without being a hypocrite. Do you believe God zapped people into existence? Just curious. Was it with a wiggle of his nose? A magic wand maybe?
> 
> *POOF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be burning in hell soon enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the universe really is that retarded I hope I at least get to give that fool a piece of my mind before I am ejected into hell. I could have thought up a better universe than that.
Click to expand...


You are too stupid to discuss science nor what's constitutes a good healthy diet.  The only reason you don't believe is because you're a homo or have some other Hollywood value issue.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I just smacked you and your science to oblivion using observational science while you continue to hold your silly mythological beliefs based on faith.  It's a done deal like I said.
> 
> I can't help it if you don't understand the scientific method.  You cannot explain how wisdom teeth were _not_ impacted in the past.  People had larger jaws due to the fibrous and coarser foods they ate.  Now, you're using ad hominem attacks cause I whipped your dumb butt silly.
> 
> There's a reason why dieticians advocate eating more fiber because it's a healthier diet.  Today, we eat too much sugar and processed foods that have screwed our bodies up.  Can you get that through your thick skull?  You probably think GMO foods are safe?  Ha ha.


You're a Clown who has to Lie for Jesus, or have his whole family and social life collapse.

You did NOT support your Goofy contentions or generalizations at all, and did NOT refute mine/the widely noted 'anatomical remnants' the OP. (starting/Noted even hundreds of years ago)... which is Not just Wisdom Teeth, but Hundreds of examples on Hundreds of related Species.
You're Disingenous and Dishonest.
About the worst of the 7/11 Adventist Loonies I've seen.

Now back to *AnswersInGenePis* with you.
`


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu, you should know that no amount of evidence is going to convince these retards that God didn't poof humanity into existence. It's not about an evidence threshold that needs to be met in their minds. They will just never accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used science not religion you dumb fuckasaurus.  Only a retard such as you can't tell between the science and religion forums ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just criticized Abu for using ad hominems. You should try to go 4 or 5 posts without being a hypocrite. Do you believe God zapped people into existence? Just curious. Was it with a wiggle of his nose? A magic wand maybe?
> 
> *POOF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be burning in hell soon enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the universe really is that retarded I hope I at least get to give that fool a piece of my mind before I am ejected into hell. I could have thought up a better universe than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too stupid to discuss science nor what's constitutes a good healthy diet.  The only reason you don't believe is because you're a homo or have some other Hollywood value issue.
Click to expand...


A creationist thinks I'm too stupid to discuss science. You think God just zapped complex organisms into existence from nothing, yet _I'm_ the stupid one? And all of this while pretending to be pro science. I assure you my belief that God didn't create the universe in 7 days has nothing to do with my sexual preferences.

Do you believe in Noah's Ark too? The Garden of Eden? How about that dude that lived inside of a whale? Jack and the bea- oh wait, that one's not in the bible; it's easy to get them mixed up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.



Do you have any idea how much evidence is *required* for something to be called a theory in science? An extremely overwhelming amount. When scientists call something a theory they are basically saying "Based on magnitudes of evidence we are 99.9999999999% sure that this is true. Elements may be updated, but we're confident that the core will never be disproven."


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just smacked you and your science to oblivion using observational science while you continue to hold your silly mythological beliefs based on faith.  It's a done deal like I said.
> 
> I can't help it if you don't understand the scientific method.  You cannot explain how wisdom teeth were _not_ impacted in the past.  People had larger jaws due to the fibrous and coarser foods they ate.  Now, you're using ad hominem attacks cause I whipped your dumb butt silly.
> 
> There's a reason why dieticians advocate eating more fiber because it's a healthier diet.  Today, we eat too much sugar and processed foods that have screwed our bodies up.  Can you get that through your thick skull?  You probably think GMO foods are safe?  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a Clown who has to Lie for Jesus, or have his whole family and social life collapse.
> 
> You did NOT support your Goofy contentions or generalizations at all, and did NOT refute mine/the widely noted 'anatomical remnants' the OP. (starting/Noted even hundreds of years ago)... which is Not just Wisdom Teeth, but Hundreds of examples on Hundreds of related Species.
> You're Disingenous and Dishonest.
> About the worst of the 7/11 Adventist Loonies I've seen.
> 
> Now back to *AnswersInGenePis* with you.
> `
Click to expand...


Part of science is disagreement and SERIOUS disagreement as one's life work can be destroyed in an instant.  In this case, it wasn't one's life work, but an un-credited and horrid cut and paste job.  Possibly one's worldview.  The argument for vestigial organs has been debunked.  It's history.  Now, what's interesting is your evo scientists claim that our smaller jaws is due to _evolution_ of our diet.  They just went from one wrong argument to another.  To the contrary, our diet hasn't *evolved*, but gotten worse.  All the sugar, saturated fat, gmo (mutation) and processed crap has de-evolved us.  We aren't living longer, but shorter lives.  Even monkeys eat better than us.

Maybe it's God's showing us his wrath against evolution because removal of vestigial organs is usually painful and requires surgery.


----------



## james bond

Confounding said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how much evidence is *required* for something to be called a theory in science? An extremely overwhelming amount. When scientists call something a theory they are basically saying "Based on magnitudes of evidence we are 99.9999999999% sure that this is true. Elements may be updated, but we're confident that the core will never be disproven."
Click to expand...


If you had a valid point in this, then you wouldn't have hesitated for a chance to destroy a creation scientist's argument.  Instead, you continue to believe in false beliefs and highly questionable fossil evidence.  People realize Lucy, australopithicus afarensis, was a failure.  It's tour lost money and sent the monkey fossils back to Ethiopia.


----------



## harmonica

Freewill said:


> Gen0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.
> 
> I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
Click to expand...

it's just complex in your thinking
that is irrelevant anyway 
creation of life is a whole different subject--also irrelevant 
those are very poor arguments


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii


hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha
..JB, we are going to have to ignore more of your [] ''proof'' if you keep posting links like this
1. it says *NOTHING *about the teeth in the article--the teeth could be ready to fall out/cavities/age of victim/etc
2. missing teeth


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> creation scientist...highly questionable fossil evidence.



LOL


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Freewill said:


> All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie.


A silly thong to say, as that is now how "species" is defined anyway. Yes, thoss are all examples of vestigial physiology.

Another is the rear legs of whales. We can follow their diminished size and utility on a smooth continuum in the fossil record of whale ancestors. Even today, these vestigial limbs appear in different degrees of development, even within individuals of the same whale species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

harmonica said:


> JB, we are going to have to ignore


Good grief,please do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> Please explain _exactly_ how one species can reproduce another species


Okay, I will relate to you the explanation that 9th graders are given, as this is beginner level material and is included in introductory courses.

First of all, it is important to remember that such an event will typically take a very long time. Second, use a thought experiment. Take an individual of a species, and send it back in time 10, 000 years. It will be able to breed and produce offspring of the same species with the individuals alive at that time.

Take an individual alive 10, 000 years ago, and take it back 10,000 years. The same fact will hold.

You can keep doing this over and over, until you are back at the very first organisms.

However, the same would likely not hold, if you were to take an individual alive today, and take it back 10 million years.

This helps give you a sense of the gradual work of evolution to create new species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.


Of course there is, and mountains of it at that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Part of science is disagreement and SERIOUS disagreement


Correct. And another part of science is settling on agreement, when the preponderance of evidence leaves no other choice.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Part of science is disagreement and SERIOUS disagreement as one's life work can be destroyed in an instant.


And Creationism is NOT "Science" in any way.



			
				james bond said:
			
		

> In this case, it wasn't one's life work, but an un-credited and horrid cut and paste job.  Possibly one's worldview.  *The argument for vestigial organs has been debunked.*  It's history.


No it hasn't.
Except on your Creationism Websites Circle Jerk.



			
				james bond said:
			
		

> Now, what's interesting is your evo scientists claim that our smaller jaws is due to _evolution_ of our diet.  They just went from one wrong argument to another.  *To the contrary, our diet hasn't evolved, but gotten worse.  All the sugar, saturated fat, gmo (mutation) and processed crap has de-evolved us.
> 
> We aren't living longer, but shorter lives.*  Even monkeys eat better than us.


Blindingly Stupid.
Our Jaw shape changed for many reasons, including allowing for larger brains.

And we are living MUCH longer lives than our predecessors from Millions/Hundreds-of-thousands/Thousands/Hundreds of years ago
YOU MORON.
The diet may not be better in nutritional components, but calories are infinitley easier to get due to advances in the last 10K years, and people survive much longer,



			
				james bond said:
			
		

> Maybe it's *God's showing us his wrath against evolution because removal of vestigial organs is usually painful and requires surgery.*


What!
Now you unwittingly admit Vestigal Organs AND removal...concede the whole thread point!

And what "God"?
You want to talk/bluff Science, yet you introduce no-evidence-god/magic?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Confounding said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how much evidence is *required* for something to be called a theory in science? An extremely overwhelming amount. When scientists call something a theory they are basically saying "Based on magnitudes of evidence we are 99.9999999999% sure that this is true. Elements may be updated, but we're confident that the core will never be disproven."
Click to expand...

And yet NO ACTUAL evidence that a mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species. NONE NADA ZIPPO.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is, and mountains of it at that.
Click to expand...

Post it then


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NO ACTUAL evidence that a mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species. NONE NADA ZIPPO.


How so Goofy?
There's TONS of Evidence, from Fossils, DNA regression analysis, and of course, the thread title is very strong.
That is "ACTUAL Evidence".
*You want Pictures/a shortened Time lapse video of an ape turning into a Man?
Is that, to your 60 IQ brain, the only "Actual evidence."

Most Murder convictions - "beyond a reasonable Doubt" - are on Circumstantial Evidence, NOT eyewitness accounts. In fact, the latter are notoriously un and less relaible.*

more
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 *Vestigial structures*
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling

IOW, you too are a raging Moron.
To have reached this point in life, with access to unlimited info..
You have utterly Failed.
You are Willfully Stupid - probably indoctrinated from Birth... Jesus-Porked.
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NONE of that shows a single mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different species. NONE of it and there is NO FOSSIL evidence to support the claim either, dumb ass.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> NONE of that shows a single mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different species. NONE of it and there is NO FOSSIL evidence to support the claim either, dumb ass.


I just posted TONS of evidence
You live in denial you MORON.

**** you and your Fake god/Dog for which there is NO Evidence at all. No fossils, No DNA, no Nothing.
You lost you 12 IQ Clown
You are human garbage, probably in the right profession tho: taking orders mindlessly.
You just say "no".

You reached this point in life with access to unlimited info..
You have utterly Failed.
You are Willfully Stupid - probably indoctrinated from Birth... Jesus-Porked.
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of that shows a single mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different species. NONE of it and there is NO FOSSIL evidence to support the claim either, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted TONS of evidence
> You live in denial you MORON.
> 
> **** you and your Fake god/Dog for which there is NO Evidence at all. No fossils, No DNA, no Nothing.
> You lost you 12 IQ Clown
> You are human garbage, probably in the right profession tho: taking orders mindlessly.
> You just say "no".
> 
> You reached this point in life with access to unlimited info..
> You have utterly Failed.
> You are Willfully Stupid - probably indoctrinated from Birth... Jesus-Porked.
> `
Click to expand...

What you posted does NOT have a single proven case of a mammal evolving into 2 distinctly different species. NOT ONE case. If it did he proof would be all over the place as science can not prove it and has been trying for years.


----------



## Confounding

abu afak said:


> *You want Pictures/a shortened Time lapse video of an ape turning into a Man?
> Is that, to your 60 IQ brain, the only "Actual evidence."*



He still wouldn't be convinced. His faith is crucial to his world view. Everything he knows would be in tatters if he lost that. When you confront religious people in a way that forces them to choose between science and their faith, they will almost always choose their faith. For a lot of them anything in the world that tempts them to question their faith is Satan.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> *What you posted does NOT have a single proven case of a mammal evolving into 2 distinctly different species.* NOT ONE case. If it did he proof would be all over the place as science can not prove it and has been trying for years.


You LYING Turd..
*You just HAD to move the goal posts from "No Evidence" to... "Not a single proven case".*
*You lost.*
*There is TONS of "actual evidence".*
Posted above.
As I said above, *Morons like you need/demand to see PICTURES of a chicken coming out a Giraffe's ass to "prove" evo.*

IOW, You're not only an idiot, you're DISHONEST and in denial.


EDIT to last-wording GoonerySgt below
You lost Clown.
And worse, exposed yourself as both Blindingly Stupid And Dishonest.
Unable to even carry on rudimentary debate.
No more replies.
Gameover you piece of trash. 
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you posted does NOT have a single proven case of a mammal evolving into 2 distinctly different species. NOT ONE case. If it did he proof would be all over the place as science can not prove it and has been trying for years.
> 
> 
> 
> You LYING Turd..
> *You just HAD to move the goal posts from "No Evidence" to... "Not a single proven case".
> You lost.
> There is TONS of "actual evidence".*
> Posted above.
> As I said above, *Morons like you want to see a chicken coming out a Giraffe's ass to "prove" evo.*
> 
> IOW, You're not only an idiot, you're DISHONEST and in denial.
> `
Click to expand...

LOL evidence of what? if you can not prove it then you have NO EVIDENCE. Fossil records are no help since they can not show how a species came into being. So that's out the window. Go ahead post a single proven time a mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is, and mountains of it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post it then
Click to expand...

Post the entire fossil record, the thousands of mitochondrial DNA studies, and the results of dNA sequencing, all of which are in agreement and mtually supoortive?

No, I think a person honestly interested in seeing this evidence would look it up himself.


----------



## jwoodie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain _exactly_ how one species can reproduce another species
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I will relate to you the explanation that 9th graders are given, as this is beginner level material and is included in introductory courses.
> 
> First of all, it is important to remember that such an event will typically take a very long time.
Click to expand...


In other words, it just happens over millions of years.  Get back to me when you have finished the 10th grade.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that an Mammal has ever evolved in to two distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is, and mountains of it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post it then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post the entire fossil record, the thousands of mitochondrial DNA studies, and the results of dNA sequencing, all of which are in agreement and mtually supoortive?
> 
> No, I think a person honestly interested in seeing this evidence would look it up himself.
Click to expand...

Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs? Is there a pig progenitor out there that created man and pig? DNA proves nothing lots of species have similar DNA.. There is ZERO factual evidence that shows a single mammal species has EVER evolved into 2 or more different species. If there was science would present it, all they have is conjecture and assumptions. Evolution occurs with in a species but there is NO EVIDENCE that 2 different species have ever evolved from a single mammal species. NONE


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha
> ..JB, we are going to have to ignore more of your [] ''proof'' if you keep posting links like this
> 1. it says *NOTHING *about the teeth in the article--the teeth could be ready to fall out/cavities/age of victim/etc
> 2. missing teeth
Click to expand...


Many of the skulls found had perfect teeth.  The explanation is the coarse, fibrous diet and this is the type of diet that we should be eating for longevity.  Our dieticians tell us to cut sugar. gluten, dairy and eat more fiber.  This has been demonstrated by people who still have to subside on this coarse, fibrous diet.  A diet that our people before the Industrial Revolution subsided on.  Their teeth have been worn down through attrition and this created more space in the dental arch allowing for the wisdom teeth.  So, even today, we see evidence in Nigerians, people that have good teeth and are able to keep their wisdom teen.  Yet, no evidence of ape-humans.  Even your putrid example has them hahahaha.  Anyhow, the case is closed on vestigial organs.

What about addressing the pain?  You've probably suffered the pain of wisdom teeth impaction and had them removed.  What about your appendix?  Are you going to keep laughing when your side starts to hurt something fierce?  How does evolution explain that?  (It would seem to follow God's wrath since he gave women childbirth pains.  Another point evos can't explain.)  Both the pain of wisdom teeth and appendicitis should be convincing evidence of creation.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain _exactly_ how one species can reproduce another species
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I will relate to you the explanation that 9th graders are given, as this is beginner level material and is included in introductory courses.
> 
> First of all, it is important to remember that such an event will typically take a very long time. Second, use a thought experiment. Take an individual of a species, and send it back in time 10, 000 years. It will be able to breed and produce offspring of the same species with the individuals alive at that time.
> 
> Take an individual alive 10, 000 years ago, and take it back 10,000 years. The same fact will hold.
> 
> You can keep doing this over and over, until you are back at the very first organisms.
> 
> However, the same would likely not hold, if you were to take an individual alive today, and take it back 10 million years.
> 
> This helps give you a sense of the gradual work of evolution to create new species.
Click to expand...


>>FFI:  Take an individual of a species, and send it back in time 10, 000 years.<<

Colossal idiocy.  There is no evidence of being able to time travel back in time.  Many consider it impossible as God designed.

What you are referring to is sexual reproduction which atheists can't explain.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just smacked you and your science to oblivion using observational science while you continue to hold your silly mythological beliefs based on faith.  It's a done deal like I said.
> 
> I can't help it if you don't understand the scientific method.  You cannot explain how wisdom teeth were _not_ impacted in the past.  People had larger jaws due to the fibrous and coarser foods they ate.  Now, you're using ad hominem attacks cause I whipped your dumb butt silly.
> 
> There's a reason why dieticians advocate eating more fiber because it's a healthier diet.  Today, we eat too much sugar and processed foods that have screwed our bodies up.  Can you get that through your thick skull?  You probably think GMO foods are safe?  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a Clown who has to Lie for Jesus, or have his whole family and social life collapse.
> 
> You did NOT support your Goofy contentions or generalizations at all, and did NOT refute mine/the widely noted 'anatomical remnants' the OP. (starting/Noted even hundreds of years ago)... which is Not just Wisdom Teeth, but Hundreds of examples on Hundreds of related Species.
> You're Disingenous and Dishonest.
> About the worst of the 7/11 Adventist Loonies I've seen.
> 
> Now back to *AnswersInGenePis* with you.
> `
Click to expand...


Still smarting from the whuppin' I dished out I see.  The evidence I provided and the reasoning is what most scientists agree on today.  This is because it's covered by historical science and observational science.  It's case closed.  Time to pack your fake science up and go home.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of science is disagreement and SERIOUS disagreement as one's life work can be destroyed in an instant.
> 
> 
> 
> And Creationism is NOT "Science" in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, it wasn't one's life work, but an un-credited and horrid cut and paste job.  Possibly one's worldview.  *The argument for vestigial organs has been debunked.*  It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't.
> Except on your Creationism Websites Circle Jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what's interesting is your evo scientists claim that our smaller jaws is due to _evolution_ of our diet.  They just went from one wrong argument to another.  *To the contrary, our diet hasn't evolved, but gotten worse.  All the sugar, saturated fat, gmo (mutation) and processed crap has de-evolved us.
> 
> We aren't living longer, but shorter lives.*  Even monkeys eat better than us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blindingly Stupid.
> Our Jaw shape changed for many reasons, including allowing for larger brains.
> 
> And we are living MUCH longer lives than our predecessors from Millions/Hundreds-of-thousands/Thousands/Hundreds of years ago
> YOU MORON.
> The diet may not be better in nutritional components, but calories are infinitley easier to get due to advances in the last 10K years, and people survive much longer,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's *God's showing us his wrath against evolution because removal of vestigial organs is usually painful and requires surgery.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What!
> Now you unwittingly admit Vestigal Organs AND removal...concede the whole thread point!
> 
> And what "God"?
> You want to talk/bluff Science, yet you introduce no-evidence-god/magic?
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Just give it up and admit you lost with your poor cut n' paste explanation.  None of your arguments have anything to do with creation science.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs?



Humans and pigs have a common ancestor. 

Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> creation science.



There's an oxymoron.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Confounding said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and pigs have a common ancestor.
> 
> Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
Click to expand...

Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and pigs have a common ancestor.
> 
> Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're right. I bet the scientists were just sitting around smoking pot and thought "Dude, I bet like, all animals are related to this ancient mammal. I have no evidence to support that idea, but we should start telling people anyway."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Confounding said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and pigs have a common ancestor.
> 
> Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right. I bet the scientists were just sitting around smoking pot and thought "Dude, I bet like, all animals are related to this ancient mammal. I have no evidence to support that idea, but we should start telling people anyway."
Click to expand...

Provide any evidence that actually proves A) it ever existed and B) it evolved into every type of mammal we have now. Guess what? You ca not because it did not happen.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and pigs have a common ancestor.
> 
> Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right. I bet the scientists were just sitting around smoking pot and thought "Dude, I bet like, all animals are related to this ancient mammal. I have no evidence to support that idea, but we should start telling people anyway."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide any evidence that actually proves A) it ever existed and B) it evolved into every type of mammal we have now. Guess what? You ca not because it did not happen.
Click to expand...


So just for clarification, the scientists are lying?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Confounding said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and pigs have a common ancestor.
> 
> Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right. I bet the scientists were just sitting around smoking pot and thought "Dude, I bet like, all animals are related to this ancient mammal. I have no evidence to support that idea, but we should start telling people anyway."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide any evidence that actually proves A) it ever existed and B) it evolved into every type of mammal we have now. Guess what? You ca not because it did not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just for clarification, the scientists are lying?
Click to expand...

No they are making wild ass assumptions with no hard evidence to back their claims.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and pigs have a common ancestor.
> 
> Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right. I bet the scientists were just sitting around smoking pot and thought "Dude, I bet like, all animals are related to this ancient mammal. I have no evidence to support that idea, but we should start telling people anyway."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide any evidence that actually proves A) it ever existed and B) it evolved into every type of mammal we have now. Guess what? You ca not because it did not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just for clarification, the scientists are lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are making wild ass assumptions with no hard evidence to back their claims.
Click to expand...


So the scientists are not using science in your opinion?


----------



## james bond

Confounding said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and pigs have a common ancestor.
> 
> Meet Your Mama: First Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right. I bet the scientists were just sitting around smoking pot and thought "Dude, I bet like, all animals are related to this ancient mammal. I have no evidence to support that idea, but we should start telling people anyway."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide any evidence that actually proves A) it ever existed and B) it evolved into every type of mammal we have now. Guess what? You ca not because it did not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just for clarification, the scientists are lying?
Click to expand...


Yeah, atheist scientists are usually wrong.

In terms of the Bible, evolution was concocted by Satan and his crew and handed down to Nimrod at the Tower of Babel.  This is why you don't want to be a nimrod.

Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> evolution was concocted by Satan and his crew and handed down to Nimrod at the Tower of Babel.



LOL


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Confounding said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes more guessing assumptions and void of any facts or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right. I bet the scientists were just sitting around smoking pot and thought "Dude, I bet like, all animals are related to this ancient mammal. I have no evidence to support that idea, but we should start telling people anyway."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide any evidence that actually proves A) it ever existed and B) it evolved into every type of mammal we have now. Guess what? You ca not because it did not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just for clarification, the scientists are lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are making wild ass assumptions with no hard evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the scientists are not using science in your opinion?
Click to expand...

They are taking things NOT in evidence then making assumptions based on spurious information. There is no fossil record of the mamma mammal, there is no actual evidence that a single mammal ever spawned every mammal ever in existence and claiming their was is in fact a bald faced lie.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha
> ..JB, we are going to have to ignore more of your [] ''proof'' if you keep posting links like this
> 1. it says *NOTHING *about the teeth in the article--the teeth could be ready to fall out/cavities/age of victim/etc
> 2. missing teeth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the skulls found had perfect teeth.  The explanation is the coarse, fibrous diet and this is the type of diet that we should be eating for longevity.  Our dieticians tell us to cut sugar. gluten, dairy and eat more fiber.  This has been demonstrated by people who still have to subside on this coarse, fibrous diet.  A diet that our people before the Industrial Revolution subsided on.  Their teeth have been worn down through attrition and this created more space in the dental arch allowing for the wisdom teeth.  So, even today, we see evidence in Nigerians, people that have good teeth and are able to keep their wisdom teen.  Yet, no evidence of ape-humans.  Even your putrid example has them hahahaha.  Anyhow, the case is closed on vestigial organs.
> 
> What about addressing the pain?  You've probably suffered the pain of wisdom teeth impaction and had them removed.  What about your appendix?  Are you going to keep laughing when your side starts to hurt something fierce?  How does evolution explain that?  (It would seem to follow God's wrath since he gave women childbirth pains.  Another point evos can't explain.)  Both the pain of wisdom teeth and appendicitis should be convincing evidence of creation.
Click to expand...

many of the skulls had imperfect teeth
--see I can claim anything I want also
unless you have evidence, you are just making a claim--not providing evidence


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> In other words, it just happens over millions of years. Get back to me when you have finished the 10th grade.


That's right, it just happens.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs


No, but we share a common ancestor with them. How does a grown man alive in 2018 not understand this? There is no excuse for your ignorance, and especially not your pride in it.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha
> ..JB, we are going to have to ignore more of your [] ''proof'' if you keep posting links like this
> 1. it says *NOTHING *about the teeth in the article--the teeth could be ready to fall out/cavities/age of victim/etc
> 2. missing teeth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the skulls found had perfect teeth.  The explanation is the coarse, fibrous diet and this is the type of diet that we should be eating for longevity.  Our dieticians tell us to cut sugar. gluten, dairy and eat more fiber.  This has been demonstrated by people who still have to subside on this coarse, fibrous diet.  A diet that our people before the Industrial Revolution subsided on.  Their teeth have been worn down through attrition and this created more space in the dental arch allowing for the wisdom teeth.  So, even today, we see evidence in Nigerians, people that have good teeth and are able to keep their wisdom teen.  Yet, no evidence of ape-humans.  Even your putrid example has them hahahaha.  Anyhow, the case is closed on vestigial organs.
> 
> What about addressing the pain?  You've probably suffered the pain of wisdom teeth impaction and had them removed.  What about your appendix?  Are you going to keep laughing when your side starts to hurt something fierce?  How does evolution explain that?  (It would seem to follow God's wrath since he gave women childbirth pains.  Another point evos can't explain.)  Both the pain of wisdom teeth and appendicitis should be convincing evidence of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> many of the skulls had imperfect teeth
> --see I can claim anything I want also
> unless you have evidence, you are just making a claim--not providing evidence
Click to expand...


Except you're a fool who's lying through his teeth.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pigs are over 90 percent dna match for humans did we evolve from pigs
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we share a common ancestor with them. How does a grown man alive in 2018 not understand this? There is no excuse for your ignorance, and especially not your pride in it.
Click to expand...



You might but I don't...


Once again like in the 2nd response to the OP how did a fury like creature, strong as hell , why did it she'd it's fur and become a weak creature??

.


----------



## james bond

Part of the painful truth may be that dentists have been lying to us for years and not everyone has to have their wisdom tooth removed.

Evidence Is Mounting That Routine Wisdom Teeth Removal Is a Waste of Time

Else, here's one of the tough extractions


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> You might but I don't...


Of course you do. Scientific knowledge doesn't care what you find distasteful or what your religion is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> why did it she'd it's fur and become a weak creature?


Because more resources were put toward the brain, coupled with the fact that this new, complex brain rendered that strength and fur less necessary.

Different selective pressures operate on different populations. This is why we have more than one species in the first place.


----------



## abu afak

bear513 said:


> Once again like in the 2nd response to the OP how did a fury like creature, strong as hell , why did it she'd it's fur and become a weak creature??
> 
> .


What an idiot question, and already answered by Fort Fun

That "weak" creature then went on to dominate/conquer the planet, and the only one ever to control it for his own purpose.
[Physically] "Weaker" is not necessarily weaker overall.
Do Lions or Tigers keep human in zoos?
Can Gorillas make a fire?
run a 1000 acre farm that feeds thousands?
Go to the moon?
Make a Gun?

Intra-species...
Why are Apple/Google/Microsoft/Amazon created/run by Geeky runts, and not Hulk Hogan and Michael Jordan?
Are Fortune 500 CEO's and Nobel winners our physically strongest people?

You're such an idiot. Join James Blond and GoonerySgt at in the run-off for least evolved human.
`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Part of the painful truth may be that dentists have been lying to us for years and not everyone has to have their wisdom tooth removed.
> 
> Evidence Is Mounting That Routine Wisdom Teeth Removal Is a Waste of Time
> 
> Else, here's one of the tough extractions


YOUR Link continues:

*..To be clear, not all wisdom teeth removals are unnecessary. Wisdom teeth can become infected, cause tooth decay or cysts, damage neighbouring teeth, and cause a huge amount of pain if left in people's jaws.

In these cases, the evidence is clear that it's far better for a patient to have these 'third molars' - the official name for wisdom teeth - removed.*​
Pretty similar to my OP.
And No one said_ "Everyone has to have their Wisdom teet removed__"_ including My OP.
My OP said in "one third" of people they become impacted.

Did god/Dog mean that to happen? Maybe to the Sinners! Yeah that's it!
More likley they were slowly on there way out, as some people who had badly impacted cases probably died of infection before reproduction.

You are a Filthy LIAR and you must continue to misrepresent what was posted.

You are Necesarily Dishonest in all your posts.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the painful truth may be that dentists have been lying to us for years and not everyone has to have their wisdom tooth removed.
> 
> Evidence Is Mounting That Routine Wisdom Teeth Removal Is a Waste of Time
> 
> Else, here's one of the tough extractions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR Link continues:
> 
> *..To be clear, not all wisdom teeth removals are unnecessary. Wisdom teeth can become infected, cause tooth decay or cysts, damage neighbouring teeth, and cause a huge amount of pain if left in people's jaws.
> 
> In these cases, the evidence is clear that it's far better for a patient to have these 'third molars' - the official name for wisdom teeth - removed.*​
> Pretty similar to my OP.
> And No one said_ "Everyone has to have their Wisdom teet removed__"_ including My OP.
> My OP said in "one third" of people they become impacted.
> 
> Did god/Dog mean that to happen? Maybe to the Sinners! Yeah that's it!
> More likley they were slowly on there way out, as some people who had badly impacted cases probably died of infection before reproduction.
> 
> You are a Filthy LIAR and you must continue to misrepresent what was posted.
> 
> You are Necesarily Dishonest in all your posts.
> `
Click to expand...


This is my last post because I won't stand to be called a liar when I try to explain the TRUTH.  You have no evidence for vestigial organs while my scientific explanation and historical evidence makes it CASE CLOSED.  In fact, you admitted as much when you stated not all wisdom teeth need to be removed.  You need to look up the definition of vestigial.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha
> ..JB, we are going to have to ignore more of your [] ''proof'' if you keep posting links like this
> 1. it says *NOTHING *about the teeth in the article--the teeth could be ready to fall out/cavities/age of victim/etc
> 2. missing teeth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the skulls found had perfect teeth.  The explanation is the coarse, fibrous diet and this is the type of diet that we should be eating for longevity.  Our dieticians tell us to cut sugar. gluten, dairy and eat more fiber.  This has been demonstrated by people who still have to subside on this coarse, fibrous diet.  A diet that our people before the Industrial Revolution subsided on.  Their teeth have been worn down through attrition and this created more space in the dental arch allowing for the wisdom teeth.  So, even today, we see evidence in Nigerians, people that have good teeth and are able to keep their wisdom teen.  Yet, no evidence of ape-humans.  Even your putrid example has them hahahaha.  Anyhow, the case is closed on vestigial organs.
> 
> What about addressing the pain?  You've probably suffered the pain of wisdom teeth impaction and had them removed.  What about your appendix?  Are you going to keep laughing when your side starts to hurt something fierce?  How does evolution explain that?  (It would seem to follow God's wrath since he gave women childbirth pains.  Another point evos can't explain.)  Both the pain of wisdom teeth and appendicitis should be convincing evidence of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> many of the skulls had imperfect teeth
> --see I can claim anything I want also
> unless you have evidence, you are just making a claim--not providing evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you're a fool who's lying through his teeth.
Click to expand...

they have better teeth
hahahahahhahahahah
?????
here--these people have better fingernails:


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha
> ..JB, we are going to have to ignore more of your [] ''proof'' if you keep posting links like this
> 1. it says *NOTHING *about the teeth in the article--the teeth could be ready to fall out/cavities/age of victim/etc
> 2. missing teeth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the skulls found had perfect teeth.  The explanation is the coarse, fibrous diet and this is the type of diet that we should be eating for longevity.  Our dieticians tell us to cut sugar. gluten, dairy and eat more fiber.  This has been demonstrated by people who still have to subside on this coarse, fibrous diet.  A diet that our people before the Industrial Revolution subsided on.  Their teeth have been worn down through attrition and this created more space in the dental arch allowing for the wisdom teeth.  So, even today, we see evidence in Nigerians, people that have good teeth and are able to keep their wisdom teen.  Yet, no evidence of ape-humans.  Even your putrid example has them hahahaha.  Anyhow, the case is closed on vestigial organs.
> 
> What about addressing the pain?  You've probably suffered the pain of wisdom teeth impaction and had them removed.  What about your appendix?  Are you going to keep laughing when your side starts to hurt something fierce?  How does evolution explain that?  (It would seem to follow God's wrath since he gave women childbirth pains.  Another point evos can't explain.)  Both the pain of wisdom teeth and appendicitis should be convincing evidence of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> many of the skulls had imperfect teeth
> --see I can claim anything I want also
> unless you have evidence, you are just making a claim--not providing evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you're a fool who's lying through his teeth.
Click to expand...

there is no evidence about their teeth!!! 
where's the evidence??!!!


----------



## jwoodie

I don't have a dog in this fight, so how about we agree on a couple of premises:

1.  There is a difference between the concepts of intraspecies adaptation and interspecies evolution.

2.  There is undisputed physical evidence of the former (e.g., polar bears), but very little physical evidence of the latter.

3.  As a result, interspecies evolution relies more on theory than archaeological documentation.

4.  Theories are an important part of the scientific advancement of human understanding, but are subject to revision as greater knowledge advances.

An analogy to current evolutionary theory is Copernicus' conclusion that the Sun, rather than Earth, was the enter of the universe.  This was a giant step forward in astronomy, just as Darwin's conclusions were a giant step forward in biology.  However, both of these achievements still contained unresolved contradictions.  Copernicus could not explain why the Moon did not revolve around the Sun, and Darwin knew nothing about genetic species identification.  Modern astronomy has solved most of Copernicus' contradictions, but modern biology is still struggling to explain the uneven pace of species appearances on Earth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> 1. There is a difference between the concepts of intraspecies adaptation and interspecies evolution.
> 
> 2. There is undisputed physical evidence of the former (e.g., polar bears), but very little physical evidence of the latter.


Completely false. Not only have we observed speciation directly, the fossil record of some lineages is quite robust. Furthermore, we know the physical mechanisms of evolution amd can test for them. And, the genetic testing, the fossil record, and the physiology are all in perfect agreement. Unless you would like to propose the insane idea that this os merely coincidence (and back it up with mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence ofbthe type which contradicts your statement), then you will have to accept you said is simply not true


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> An analogy to current evolutionary theory is Copernicus' conclusion that the Sun, rather than Earth, was the enter of the universe.


That is a terrible analogy. What your analogy actually suggests is that, someday, oh just maybe, we might decide on the evidence that the earth does not actually revolve about the sun..

No, that is not going to happen. So really, your analogy demonstrates that science can arrive at factual explanations that are and should be accepted....like evolution.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the observational evidence.  Check out the teeth on the skulls of people buried in Pompeii.  They have really nice teeth and still have their wisdom teeth and they didn't have orthodontics and modern dentistry.  It's our stupid diet that has screwed up our jaws and teeth.  Same with our cecum and appendix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeologists find skull of ancient Roman killed while fleeing Pompeii
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha
> ..JB, we are going to have to ignore more of your [] ''proof'' if you keep posting links like this
> 1. it says *NOTHING *about the teeth in the article--the teeth could be ready to fall out/cavities/age of victim/etc
> 2. missing teeth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the skulls found had perfect teeth.  The explanation is the coarse, fibrous diet and this is the type of diet that we should be eating for longevity.  Our dieticians tell us to cut sugar. gluten, dairy and eat more fiber.  This has been demonstrated by people who still have to subside on this coarse, fibrous diet.  A diet that our people before the Industrial Revolution subsided on.  Their teeth have been worn down through attrition and this created more space in the dental arch allowing for the wisdom teeth.  So, even today, we see evidence in Nigerians, people that have good teeth and are able to keep their wisdom teen.  Yet, no evidence of ape-humans.  Even your putrid example has them hahahaha.  Anyhow, the case is closed on vestigial organs.
> 
> What about addressing the pain?  You've probably suffered the pain of wisdom teeth impaction and had them removed.  What about your appendix?  Are you going to keep laughing when your side starts to hurt something fierce?  How does evolution explain that?  (It would seem to follow God's wrath since he gave women childbirth pains.  Another point evos can't explain.)  Both the pain of wisdom teeth and appendicitis should be convincing evidence of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> many of the skulls had imperfect teeth
> --see I can claim anything I want also
> unless you have evidence, you are just making a claim--not providing evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you're a fool who's lying through his teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have better teeth
> hahahahahhahahahah
> ?????
> here--these people have better fingernails:
> View attachment 208852
Click to expand...


You lie with your tongue and through the teeth.  No words of wisdom whatsoever.  You continue to have foolish arguments; Your evidence only helps validate what I've been saying.  Pre-industrial revolution people had wisdom teeth.  Fingernails aren't vestigial, so you're wrong again.  Can you get anything right ha ha?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> This is my last post because I won't stand to be called a liar when I try to explain the TRUTH.


You Never try and explain the "Truth", you try and make Excuses for the truth.
Lying for Jesus.



			
				james bond said:
			
		

> You have no evidence for vestigial organs while my scientific explanation and historical evidence makes it CASE CLOSED.  In fact, you admitted as much when you stated not all wisdom teeth need to be removed.  You need to look up the definition of vestigial.


Actually the Evidence is overwhelming for vestigal.
You need to read the Op. (instead of Dishonesly LYING AGAIN)

This was noticed in the 1700s/before Darwin-ists by presumably Christian scientists:
OP
"..Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could Not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several Vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures."*​
You cannot debate me. You had to Fold.
I don't let you dodge and deflect.
I call you on your fallacy, and Nail you for it.

You even LIED about Wisdom Teeth, and claimed I asserted everyone had to have them removed.
You posted juvenile distracting Dentist Chair pix, and suggested "God" wanted to make it painful.
You JOKE.
And of course, you touched none of the other examples in the OP at all.

You cannot Honestly debate me or anyone else here.
That's why I savage you. You're Disingenuous/Dishonest.
You post idiotic defelections.
You may ignore me, but I will continue to Gut your lying posts.
You ain't off the hook.
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is a difference between the concepts of intraspecies adaptation and interspecies evolution.
> 
> 2. There is undisputed physical evidence of the former (e.g., polar bears), but very little physical evidence of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely false. Not only have we observed speciation directly, the fossil record of some lineages is quite robust. Furthermore, we know the physical mechanisms of evolution amd can test for them. And, the genetic testing, the fossil record, and the physiology are all in perfect agreement. Unless you would like to propose the insane idea that this os merely coincidence (and back it up with mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence ofbthe type which contradicts your statement), then you will have to accept you said is simply not true
Click to expand...

There is NO actual EVIDENCE that a single mammal species EVER evolved into two different species. It does not exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO actual EVIDENCE that a single mammal species EVER evolved into two different species


False. You can keep screaming this until you are blue in the face. Our scientific knowledge does not care about your religion, or your fetishes, or your neuroses


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO actual EVIDENCE that a single mammal species EVER evolved into two different species
> 
> 
> 
> False. You can keep screaming this until you are blue in the face. Our scientific knowledge does not care about your religion, or your fetishes, or your neuroses
Click to expand...

BE VERY specific and show evidence of a mammal, I dont mean guess work or assumptions but physical evidence, that evolved into 2 distinctly different mammals. Show the original species and the two or more new species, physical actual evidence.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO actual EVIDENCE that a single mammal species EVER evolved into two different species. It does not exist.


Asked and Answered  more than once you 12 IQ Battle damaged/Shell-shocked trash.
You just deny it, say "No."
*That is NOT debate.

You can't just say something Labeled "evidence" by numerous highly Credible sources is not.*
You're a TROLL who just says "no'"
AGAIN....

How so Goofy?
There's TONS of Evidence, from Fossils, DNA regression analysis, and of course, the thread title is very strong.
That is "ACTUAL Evidence".
*You want Pictures/a shortened Time lapse video of an ape turning into a Man?
Is that, to your 60 IQ brain, the only "Actual evidence."

Most Murder convictions - "beyond a reasonable Doubt" - are on Circumstantial Evidence, NOT eyewitness accounts. In fact, the latter are notoriously un and less relaible.*

more
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 *Vestigial structures*
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling

IOW, you too are a raging Moron.
To have reached this point in life, with access to unlimited info..
You have utterly Failed.
You are Willfully Stupid - probably indoctrinated from Birth... Jesus-Porked.​`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO actual EVIDENCE that a single mammal species EVER evolved into two different species. It does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Asked and Answered  more than ones you 12 IQ Battle damaged/Shell-shocked trash.
> You just deny it, say "No."
> *That is NOT debate
> You can't just say something Labeled "evidence" by numerous highly Credible sources is not.*
> You're a TROLL who just says "no'"
> AGAIN:
> 
> How so Goofy?
> There's TONS of Evidence, from Fossils, DNA regression analysis, and of course, the thread title is very strong.
> That is "ACTUAL Evidence".
> *You want Pictures/a shortened Time lapse video of an ape turning into a Man?
> Is that, to your 60 IQ brain, the only "Actual evidence."
> 
> Most Murder convictions - "beyond a reasonable Doubt" - are on Circumstantial Evidence, NOT eyewitness accounts. In fact, the latter are notoriously un and less relaible.*
> 
> more
> Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 *Vestigial structures*
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
> 
> IOW, you too are a raging Moron.
> To have reached this point in life, with access to unlimited info..
> You have utterly Failed.
> You are Willfully Stupid - probably indoctrinated from Birth... Jesus-Porked.​`
Click to expand...

NOT one of the sources you list has any physical evidence it is all smoke and mirrors assumptions built on guesses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO actual EVIDENCE that a single mammal species EVER evolved into two different species
> 
> 
> 
> False. You can keep screaming this until you are blue in the face. Our scientific knowledge does not care about your religion, or your fetishes, or your neuroses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BE VERY specific and show evidence of a mammal, I dont mean guess work or assumptions but physical evidence, that evolved into 2 distinctly different mammals. Show the original species and the two or more new species, physical actual evidence.
Click to expand...

You were already shown evidence, and you rejected it. I don't give a shit whether or not you believe it. I am fully content simply to mock your comments and refute them.

And consider the absurdity of your whiny demands...the most Robust scientific theory in history -- evolution -- is a proven fact, supported by all the evidence.

But you claim otherwise, based on nothing at all but your personal fetishes...and others are expected to acquiesce to your demands to spoonfeed you the material found in a 7th grade science text, so that you -- an uneducated slob with no education or experience in any of these fields -- can shit on it?

Haha...no. Twist in the wind, sir.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO actual EVIDENCE that a single mammal species EVER evolved into two different species
> 
> 
> 
> False. You can keep screaming this until you are blue in the face. Our scientific knowledge does not care about your religion, or your fetishes, or your neuroses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BE VERY specific and show evidence of a mammal, I dont mean guess work or assumptions but physical evidence, that evolved into 2 distinctly different mammals. Show the original species and the two or more new species, physical actual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were already shown evidence, and you rejected it. I don't give a shit whether or not you believe it. I am fully content simply to mock your comments and refute them.
> 
> And think the absurd of your whiny demands...the most Rob scientific theory in history -- evolution -- is a proven fact, supported by all the evidence.
> 
> But you claim otherwise, based on nothing at all but your personal fetishes...and others are expected to acquire to yiur demands to spoonfeed you the material found in a 7th grade science text?
> 
> Haha...no. Twist in the wind, sir.
Click to expand...

NOT a single link has any actual physical evidence it is all guesses and assumptions with no actual physical bases in fact. Science does NOT have a physical corpse or bones that PROVE 2 or more other mammals sprang from it.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> *NOT one of the sources you list has any Physical Evidence it is all smoke and mirrors assumptions built on guesses*.


Actually, it's ALL "Physical evidence" you MORON.
ALL of it. 
Fossils, DNA, Chemistry, Geology, etc
*ALL "Physical Evidence," and would be admitted into any legal case.*
*Bones, DNA, Crime scene physical traces.*
*ALL Physical Evidence.*
*and oft enough for Conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" withOUT eyewitness account.*

*You STUPID ******* ASSHOLE.*
*`*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> NOT a single link has any actual physical evidence


Lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NOT one of the sources you list has any Physical Evidence it is all smoke and mirrors assumptions built on guesses*.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's ALL Physical evidence you MORON.
> ALL of it.
> Fossils, DNA, Chemistry, Geology, etc
> *ALL Physical Evidence, and would be admitted into any legal case.*
> *Bones, DNA, Crime scene physical traces.*
> *ALL Physical Evidence.*
> *and oft enough for Conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" withOUT eyewitness account.*
> 
> *You STUPID ******* ASSHOLE.*
> *`*
Click to expand...

DNA does not prove that something that is not one hundred percent the same as the compared to bone is from the same mammal. One must ASSUME that close matches are indicative of that. No hard evidence exists. No REAL scientist would EVER make the claims you two retards are making in this thread, EVER. The science just does not have the proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> DNA does not prove that something that is not one hundred percent the same as the compared to bone is from the same mammal.


And tgis is exactly what I am talking about. No one piece of evidence proves any scientific theory. What proves evolution is that the evidence from every single field of science and from experimental method is in agreement.

This was explained to you, very directly and explicitly.

And yet still you say stupid things, like your comment i quoted above. This proves you are not interested in learning anything, that you are dishonest, and that no amount of evidence or effort would change your mind.

What is with your little dog and pony show? What is with this embarrassing attempt by you to act as if your belief comes with ANY deference to evidence or lack thereof? Are you so embarrassed of your goofy voodoo religion that you can't simply say, "I say no, because the Bible says no!" Trust me, that would be less embarrassing for you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA does not prove that something that is not one hundred percent the same as the compared to bone is from the same mammal.
> 
> 
> 
> And tgis is exactly what I am talking about. No one piece of evidence proves any scientific theory. What proves evolution is that the evidence from every single field of science and from experimental method is in agreement.
> 
> This was explained to you, very directly and explicitly.
> 
> And yet still you say stupid things, like your comment i quoted above. This proves you are not interested in learning anything, that you are dishonest, and that no amount of evidence or effort would change your mind.
> 
> What is with your little dog and pony show? What is with this embarrassing attempt by you to act as if your beliefs comes with ANY deference to evidence or lack thereof? Are you so embarrassed of your goofy voodoo religion that you can't simply say, "I say no, because the Bible says no!" Trust me, that would be less embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

Name one reputable scientist that claims he has PROOF that a mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different mammal species?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Name one reputable scientist that claims he has PROOF that a mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different mammal species?


No. You name one that doesn't. One reputable, publishing biologist.

Just one.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one reputable scientist that claims he has PROOF that a mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different mammal species?
> 
> 
> 
> No. You name one that doesn't. One reputable, publishing biologist.
> 
> Just one.
Click to expand...


So you ADMIT you can not name anyone in the science community that is reputable will make the same claims you made here, thanks for playing


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one reputable scientist that claims he has PROOF that a mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different mammal species?
> 
> 
> 
> No. You name one that doesn't. One reputable, publishing biologist.
> 
> Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you ADMIT you can not name anyone in the science community that is reputable will make the same claims you made here, thanks for playing
Click to expand...

I of course admitted no such thing. I refused.your moronic demand. As evolution is accepted fact and the most robust scientific theory in history, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to acquiesce to your crybaby demands, especially considering this demand was already met, with your predictable tantrum soon following.. Should I also prove water is wet? I should throw a bucket of water over you, and watch you wail and cry and stomp your feet and insist that water is not wet?

But it would certainly be a challenge to name one reputable, publishing bilogist who is publishing science which contradicts evolutionary theory.

In fact, you couldn't do it if your life depended on it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one reputable scientist that claims he has PROOF that a mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different mammal species?
> 
> 
> 
> No. You name one that doesn't. One reputable, publishing biologist.
> 
> Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you ADMIT you can not name anyone in the science community that is reputable will make the same claims you made here, thanks for playing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I of course admitted no such thing. I refused.your moronic demand. As evolution is accepted fact and the most robust scientific theory in history, I feel no compulsive whatsoever to acquiesce to your crybaby demands. Should I also prove water is wet?
> 
> But it would certainly be a challenge to name one reputable, oublishing bilogist who is oublishing science which contradicts evolutionary theory.
> 
> In fact, you couldn't do it if your life depended on it.
Click to expand...

NONE of them say it is fact. NOT one. Or you would post a name with a link to the statement.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> NONE of them say it is fact. NOT one.


Of course, they all do.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one reputable scientist that claims he has PROOF that a mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different mammal species?
> 
> 
> 
> No. You name one that doesn't. One reputable, publishing biologist.
> 
> Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you ADMIT you can not name anyone in the science community that is reputable will make the same claims you made here, thanks for playing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I of course admitted no such thing. I refused.your moronic demand. As evolution is accepted fact and the most robust scientific theory in history, I feel no compulsive whatsoever to acquiesce to your crybaby demands. Should I also prove water is wet?
> 
> But it would certainly be a challenge to name one reputable, oublishing bilogist who is oublishing science which contradicts evolutionary theory.
> 
> In fact, you couldn't do it if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NONE of them say it is fact. NOT one. Or you would post a name with a link to the statement.
Click to expand...



Haha

Fort Fun Indiana 

It's not a fact dude! It's just a scientific theory! 



What a clown. You are wasting your time.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> *Name one reputable scientist that claims he has PROOF that a mammal evolved* into 2 distinctly different mammal species?


 *You lost Again and...
DISHONESTLY Moved the goal posts again!
Gone from "Physical Evidence" to "Proof".
Deja Vu from yesterday you Moron.*
So we KNOW you understand you were full of ****/LOST.

You're cornered/PORKED by Overwhelming *EVIDENCE* so have to switch to "Proof".

Well you dumb ****head, science doesn't Deal in "Proof".
Only Math has "Proofs".
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
'Scientific Theories' (NOT plain 'theory'/guess)
are the strongest statements Science can make about the universe.

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

*1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _Fact_ of evolution.
[......]​
So your IDIOT/IGNORANT challenge is Fallacious/Stupid.

Virtually no biologist will claim he has "Proof", but 99% Understand Evolution is a FACT. Evolution is the central unifying tenet of Biology (NAS)
Facts do not need "proofs".

`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Proof is all that matters. Without PROOF, like I said it is guesses and assumptions.


----------



## jwoodie

The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure indication of the weakness of their arguments.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Proof is all that matters. Without PROOF, like I said it is guesses and assumptions


Oh gee, I hope the global scientific Community thought of that!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure


Then you need to clean your monitor.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
Click to expand...

YOU HAVE ADMITTED you have no proof just assumptions and guesses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU HAVE ADMITTED you have no proof just assumptions and guesses.
Click to expand...

I have admitted no such thing. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU HAVE ADMITTED you have no proof just assumptions and guesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have admitted no such thing. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

Then PROVIDE PROOF.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU HAVE ADMITTED you have no proof just assumptions and guesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have admitted no such thing. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then PROVIDE PROOF.
Click to expand...

It has already been provided. You rejected it. Again -- please pay attention -- I will lose no sleep just because some religious nutball stranger on the internet does not accept the fact of evolution. Especially not a lazy, incurious fool who won't bother avail himself of the education of the material possessed by a 10 year old.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU HAVE ADMITTED you have no proof just assumptions and guesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have admitted no such thing. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then PROVIDE PROOF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has already been provided. You rejected it. Again -- please pay attention -- I will lose no sleep just because some religious nutball stranger on the internet does not accept the fact of evolution. Especially not a lazy, incurious fool who won't bother avail himself of the education of the material possessed by a 10 year old.
Click to expand...


What facts are has been explained to you many times.  Evolution is THEORY  If something is a fact, then it's objective and real.  We can ALL use it such as the sky is blue.  However, intelligent people can't use evolution as fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evolution is THEORY


No. Evolution is a *scientific* theory .It is also a fact.


----------



## jwoodie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
Click to expand...


I just did - by IGNORING you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did - by IGNORING you.
Click to expand...

Must be my lucky day.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is THEORY
> 
> 
> 
> No. Evolution is a *scientific* theory .It is also a fact.
Click to expand...


The explain why you've gotten dumber while many here have gotten smarter by learning from these threads.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof I have seen on this thread is that the proponents resort to insults and name-calling when challenged, a sure
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to clean your monitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU HAVE ADMITTED you have no proof just assumptions and guesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have admitted no such thing. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then PROVIDE PROOF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has already been provided. You rejected it. Again -- please pay attention -- I will lose no sleep just because some religious nutball stranger on the internet does not accept the fact of evolution. Especially not a lazy, incurious fool who won't bother avail himself of the education of the material possessed by a 10 year old.
Click to expand...

You have linked to things that are NOT proof. You can not link to a single PROVEN fact that a single mammal evolved into 2 distinctly different mammal species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The explain why you've gotten dumber while many here have gotten smarter by learning from these threads.


The only people who have gotten smarter are those who have bothered to find material that is new to them which directly contradicts your embarrassing lies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have linked to things that are NOT proof.


I didn't link to anything, so that is a bizarre comment. However, others have. You have also been given the tools and starting points to find this evidence for yourself.

But you haven't lifted a finger to do so, because you are not honestly interested in learning this material. As such, why would anyone feel even the slightest compulsion to be your mommy and try to spoonfeed anything to you?


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have linked to things that are NOT proof.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't link to anything, so that is a bizarre comment. However, others have. You have also been given the tools and starting points to find this evidence for yourself.
> 
> But you haven't lifted a finger to do so, because you are not honestly interested in learning this material. As such, why would anyone feel even the slightest compulsion to be your mommy and try to spoonfeed anything to you?
Click to expand...

Many of these people whole lives depend on believing.
Everyone they know believes.
Their parents, brothers, sisters, friends, church, and town believe.
Their social lives would evaporate, and they would have to leave everything/everyone they knew.
It's unthinkable.
So they don't think.
They are defending everything they know by dissociating/denying/lying.
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have linked to things that are NOT proof.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't link to anything, so that is a bizarre comment. However, others have. You have also been given the tools and starting points to find this evidence for yourself.
> 
> But you haven't lifted a finger to do so, because you are not honestly interested in learning this material. As such, why would anyone feel even the slightest compulsion to be your mommy and try to spoonfeed anything to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of these people whole lives depend on believing.
> Everyone they know believes.
> Their parents, brothers, sisters, friends, church, and town believe.
> Their social lives would evaporate, and they would have to leave everything/everyone they knew.
> It's unthinkable.
> So they don't think.
> They are defending everything they know by dissociating/denying/lying.
> `
Click to expand...

Actually dumb ass I totally believe in science. Your problem is you have no proof to support your claims. Further if there were proof that man evolved from an ape I would just accept that that is how God created the men and women outside of the Garden of Eden.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually dumb ass I totally believe in science...
> 
> the Garden of Eden.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have linked to things that are NOT proof.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't link to anything, so that is a bizarre comment. However, others have. You have also been given the tools and starting points to find this evidence for yourself.
> 
> But you haven't lifted a finger to do so, because you are not honestly interested in learning this material. As such, why would anyone feel even the slightest compulsion to be your mommy and try to spoonfeed anything to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of these people whole lives depend on believing.
> Everyone they know believes.
> Their parents, brothers, sisters, friends, church, and town believe.
> Their social lives would evaporate, and they would have to leave everything/everyone they knew.
> It's unthinkable.
> So they don't think.
> They are defending everything they know by dissociating/denying/lying.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually dumb ass I totally believe in science. Your problem is you have no proof to support your claims. Further if there were proof that man evolved from an ape I would just accept that that is how God created the men and women outside of the Garden of Eden.
Click to expand...

And how did god create the humans that existed before Adam and Eve,?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

However he chose. But he did make them as evidenced By Cain marrying one after being exiled.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> *Actually dumb ass I totally believe in science.
> 
> Your problem is you have no proof to support your claims.* Further if there were proof that man evolved from an ape I would just accept that that is how God created the men and women outside of the Garden of Eden.


Goofy/Lying Sgt trying again

*After getting his Head handed to him for 2 nights in a row..*
*He had to change "NO Evidence" to "No Proof".. because there is TONS of evidence for evolution.*
So something this CLOWN has probably been repeating for 50 years, he had to Give up after I beat the CRAP outa him twice.
PS: There is NOT even evidence for god/s, much less proof.

And as I explained, and you WHIFFED on, on the last page..
Evolution is a FACT.
Science doesn't deal in "proofs".

So when You said you "Totally believe in science" above, you LIED.

To further test that, I went through ALL 441 of your thread starts over 5+ YEARS here.
(please correct if I missed any in my quick scan)
Only found ONE on "Science".

*CDZ: More lies from scientists.*
Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone'* - Started by RetiredGySgt, Feb 15, 2017.*

That doesn't sound like someone who _"Totally believes in science"_.. or even Mostly believes in Science.

You're STUPID and a LIAR.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> However he chose.


Apparently, he chose evolution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> However he chose.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, he chose evolution.
Click to expand...

Again provide actual proof something that with out it you can not actually say it happened. With out proof you have guesses and assumptions.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually dumb ass I totally believe in science.
> 
> Your problem is you have no proof to support your claims.* Further if there were proof that man evolved from an ape I would just accept that that is how God created the men and women outside of the Garden of Eden.
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy/Lying Sgt trying again
> 
> *After getting his Head handed to him for 2 nights in a row..*
> *He had to change "NO Evidence" to "No Proof".. because there is TONS of evidence for evolution.*
> So something this CLOWN has probably been repeating for 50 years, he had to Give up after I beat the CRAP outa him twice.
> PS: There is NOT even evidence for god/s, much less proof.
> 
> And as I explained, and you WHIFFED on, on the last page..
> Evolution is a FACT.
> Science doesn't deal in "proofs".
> 
> So when You said you "Totally believe in science" above, you LIED.
> 
> To further test that, I went through ALL 441 of your thread starts over 5+ YEARS here.
> (please correct if I missed any in my quick scan)
> Only found ONE on "Science".
> 
> *CDZ: More lies from scientists.*
> Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone'* - Started by RetiredGySgt, Feb 15, 2017.*
> 
> That doesn't sound like someone who _"Totally believes in science"_.. or even Mostly believes in Science.
> 
> You're STUPID and a LIAR.
> `
Click to expand...


LOL.  Yet creationist and their scientists do not accept evolution.  To the contrary, this is the dumb AF sh*t that you have faith in.

All you have to do is show a single cell become a fish.  We have no single cells becoming a fish now or becoming any living creature.  In fact, none of your evolution can be seen happening.  Show us how a single cell become multicell?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again provide actual proof something that with out it you can not actually say it happened


Of course i can provide proof. Evolution is a fact and is the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again provide actual proof something that with out it you can not actually say it happened
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can provide proof. Evolution is a fact and is the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind.
Click to expand...

Then trot it out, NO scientist claims they have proof, so lets see your earth shattering proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Then trot it out,


Hmm, no, I'm not your mommy. But there are many after school tutoring programs for middle school curricula at which someone will be nice enough to spend their time doing so.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then trot it out,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, I'm not your mommy. But there are many after school tutoring programs for middle school curricula at which someone will be nice enough to spend their time doing so.
Click to expand...

As I knew, you got nothing. Once again for the slow and STUPID, there is no proof that man evolved from an ape like creature, just like there is no proof that a single mammal ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> As I knew, you got nothing


Of course I do. Any child who can read can peruse the evidence.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I knew, you got nothing
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Any child who can read can peruse the evidence.
Click to expand...

All you have are guess and assumptions. No hard facts to prove anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I knew, you got nothing
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Any child who can read can peruse the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have are guess and assumptions. No hard facts to prove anything.
Click to expand...

Of course, as any grade schooler knows, that is false, as evolution is the most well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I knew, you got nothing
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Any child who can read can peruse the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have are guess and assumptions. No hard facts to prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, as any grade schooler knows, that is false, as evolution is the most well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.
Click to expand...

And yet NO ACTUAL PROOF none nada zip. DNA that is not quite a match does not prove something evolved from something else.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NO ACTUAL PROOF


You mean, no proof that you have ever understood. Your proud of orange e amd mild stupidity does not undermine or affect at all the mountains of mutually supportive, empirical evidence gained from 150 years of scientific research.


RetiredGySgt said:


> DNA that is not quite a match does not provesomething evolved from something else.



Nobody said it did. Your bizarre comment betrays your complete ignorance of the material.


----------



## Confounding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> middle school curricula



Not if the creationist nuts get their way.


----------



## Confounding

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NO ACTUAL PROOF none nada zip. DNA that is not quite a match does not prove something evolved from something else.



Do you have any evidence that people were zapped into existence from nothing? Do you really think magic is real? You believe in the Garden of Eden? Noah's Ark? Do you believe somebody actually walked on water? How much of the Bible do you take literally? 

*YOU ARE A GROWN MAN THAT BELIEVES IN FAIRY TALES!*


I'd make fun of you more but I actually feel bad for you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NO ACTUAL PROOF
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, no proof that you have ever understood. Your proud of orange e amd mild stupidity does not undermine or affect at all the mountains of mutually supportive, empirical evidence gained from 150 years of scientific research.
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA that is not quite a match does not provesomething evolved from something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it did. Your bizarre comment betrays your complete ignorance of the material.
Click to expand...

And as I repeated several times you can not actually provide any proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And as I repeated several times you can not actually provide any proof.


And you sound dumber every time you say it. For one, any child who can read can provide proof. For two, the fa t that you are too proudly ignorant to look it up yourself shows people they should not waste their time.


----------



## abu afak

*Long-Lost Horse Toes Found*
*A new study reveals modern horses retain vestiges of all five ancestral toes*
By Brian Switek - March 21, 2018 - Scientific American
Long-Lost Horse Toes Found

Horses are on point. This is literally true. From asses to zebras, all living horses stand on a single toe - the equivalent of our third digits of our hands and feet.

The singular nature of horse legs has made equids evolutionary favorites. Their fossil record is so extensively known that for over a century they have been icons of transcendent change, a tangle of petrified skeletons stretching back over 50 million years documenting how tiny, forest-dwelling species like _Eohippus_ scampered around on multiple toes until life on hard, grass-covered plains nudged horses towards their more familiar modern forms.

Modern horses carry some signs of these changes. Now and then a horse is born with vestigial side toes, demonstrating that the genetic and developmental framework for those additional digits still exists. And even in horses with the expected single hoof, the front legs still bear two tapered bones on the side of the primary column of the feet - split bones - that are remainders of ancient, additional toes.

This is textbook stuff, *an easily-accessible demonstration of how every organism is a mix of the old and new*. But we’ve apparently been missing other clues wrapped in equine flesh. Horses don’t just have parts of three toes. They retain signs of the standard mammalian complement of five digits.

Anatomist Nikos Solounias and colleagues found the long lost piggies. It wasn’t as simple as just taking another look at a modern horse. Evolutionary context was needed, earlier horses such as the four-toed _Eohippus_, three-toed _Mesohippus_, and single-toed _Dinohippus_providing background and fetal horse specimens allowing insights into development. In the end, the researchers not only found the “missing” digits but changed the anatomical map of the horse foot.

As far as the front legs go, Solounias and coauthors point out, the traditional structure largely holds. Horses stand on their third finger, with the lateral splints being remnants of fingers two and three. But each of those splints have ridges on the bottom sides, which the experts suggest are the remainders of the lost digits one and five (think your thumb and pinky).

The rear feet are a different story. There’s a specialized structure called the frog on the bottom of the back hoof that’s the remainder of the second and fourth toes. But there are more subtle structures - called “the wings and hoof cartilages” - that are the remnants of the first and fifth toes.
[.......]
`​


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Horses provide proof that evolution occurs WITHIN a species at no time does it provide proof that a single mammal species evolves into 2 or more different species


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Horses provide proof that evolution occurs WITHIN a species at no time does it provide proof that a single mammal species evolves into 2 or more different species


Of course, the vestigial limbs we observed can be compared directly with structures in the ancestors of horses, as can all of the other structures. In this way, we can easily see the progression of the evolution of different species in the lineage of rhoses.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nobody said it did. Your bizarre comment betrays your complete ignorance of the material.


And as I repeated several times you can not actually provide any proof.
[/QUOTE]*Science doesn't deal in "Proof," only Math does.
What would send a man to death "Beyond a reasonable doubt," is not "Proof" in the absolute sense, and is in fact weaker than the Overwhelming EVIDENCE for Evolution.*

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it did. Your bizarre comment betrays your complete ignorance of the material.
> 
> 
> 
> And as I repeated several times you can not actually provide any proof.
Click to expand...

*Science doesn't deal in "Proof," only Math does.
What would send a man to death "Beyond a reasonable doubt," is not "Proof" in the absolute sense, and is in fact weaker than the Overwhelming EVIDENCE for Evolution.*

`
[/QUOTE]
Don't waste your time with that guy. He has admitted that no amount of evidence could convince him.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​


Belief in a creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Gradualism will eventually lose out to punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Belief in a creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
> Gradualism will eventually lose out to punctuated equilibrium.


Belief in Evolution is Inconsistent with Creationism.
They only can be consistent if the creator was just a spark, and not the planter of Trees and species-as-is on the planet.
Alas most all the religionists Trolling this section believe the latter.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in a creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
> Gradualism will eventually lose out to punctuated equilibrium.
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in Evolution is Inconsistent with Creationism.
> They only can be consistent if the creator was just a spark, and not the planter of Trees and species-as-is on the planet.
> Alas most all the religionists Trolling this section believe the latter.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Evolution is not inconsistent with God creating existence.  

I wouldn't dare think of limiting what He could do.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Evolution is not inconsistent with God creating existence.
> 
> I wouldn't dare think of limiting what He could do.


NONRESPONSIVE.
Again:

Belief in Evolution is Inconsistent with Creationism.
*They only can be consistent if the creator was just a spark, and not the planter of Trees and species-as-is on the planet.
Alas most all the religionists Trolling this section believe the latter.*​
Are we clear?
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not inconsistent with God creating existence.
> 
> I wouldn't dare think of limiting what He could do.
> 
> 
> 
> NONRESPONSIVE.
> Again:
> 
> Belief in Evolution is Inconsistent with Creationism.​*They only can be consistent if the creator was just a spark, and not the planter of Trees and species-as-is on the planet.*​*Alas most all the religionists Trolling this section believe the latter.*​
> Are we clear?
> `
Click to expand...

I am only clear in that your IQ must hover somewhere around 100.  

Because it would be illogical to assume the Creator of existence couldn't do whatever He wanted to do which is inconsistent with what you are claiming.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> I am only clear in that your IQ must hover somewhere around 100.
> 
> Because it would be illogical to assume the Creator of existence couldn't do whatever He wanted to do which is inconsistent with what you are claiming.


We are not arguing about the power of the creator. (who BTW is NOT IN EVIDENCE here!)
We are arguing about what is consistent with Evolution.
You can't even grasp the issue, or should I say, have NO answer to my two UNanswered posts.
So you carry on about 'the creator.'
That's again, incoherent and nonresponsive ding-dong.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am only clear in that your IQ must hover somewhere around 100.
> 
> Because it would be illogical to assume the Creator of existence couldn't do whatever He wanted to do which is inconsistent with what you are claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not arguing about the power of the creator. (who BTW is NOT IN EVIDENCE here!)
> We are arguing about what is consistent with Evolution.
> You can't even grasp the issue, or should I say, have NO answer to my two UNanswered posts.
> So you carry on about 'the creator.'
> That's again, incoherent and nonresponsive ding-dong.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You limit evolution to biology.  I don't.  So don't try and tell me about evolution.


----------



## abu afak

#3. Still waiting you SICK FREAK: (and I will keep posting it until you answer coherently and on point.)
You can't.



> ding said:
> Evolution is not inconsistent with God creating existence.
> I wouldn't dare think of limiting what He could do.


abu afak: NONRESPONSIVE.
Again:

Belief in Evolution is Inconsistent with Creationism.
*They only can be consistent if the creator was just a spark, and not the planter of Trees and species-as-is on the planet.
Alas most all the religionists Trolling this section believe the latter.*

Are we clear?
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> #3. Still waiting you SICK FREAK: (and I will keep posting it until you answer coherently and on point.)
> You can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> Evolution is not inconsistent with God creating existence.
> I wouldn't dare think of limiting what He could do.
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak: NONRESPONSIVE.
> Again:
> 
> Belief in Evolution is Inconsistent with Creationism.
> *They only can be consistent if the creator was just a spark, and not the planter of Trees and species-as-is on the planet.
> Alas most all the religionists Trolling this section believe the latter.*
> 
> Are we clear?
> `
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.  Evolution is not inconsistent with God creating existence.  Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.


----------



## ding

It's no accident that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing with laws that predestined intelligence to arise.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Are we clear?


I certainly was clear about what I wrote.  You?  Not so much.  You seem to be having a tantrum.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> Horses provide proof that evolution occurs WITHIN a species at no time does it provide proof that a single mammal species evolves into 2 or more different species


*
For the 100th time Brain-damaged CLOWN.
Science does not deal in "Proof", science deals in EVIDENCE... which is Overwhelming for Evolution.

`*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​



Evolution is like asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horses provide proof that evolution occurs WITHIN a species at no time does it provide proof that a single mammal species evolves into 2 or more different species
> 
> 
> 
> *For the 100th time Brain-damaged CLOWN.
> Science does not deal in "Proof", science deals in EVIDENCE... which is Overwhelming for Evolution.
> 
> `*
Click to expand...

And yet not one source that shows a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species. NONE NADA.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet not one source that shows a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species. NONE NADA.


Not True.
It's shown regularly.
For instance..
*When species have a large gap between them, scientists can (and have 100++ times) predicted there must be intermediate species/subspecies in between.
And of course the Fossil Record gets filled in more fully Every year with these tweeners that are only predictable BECAUSE of Evolution.*

`
You stupid DIPSHIT.
*Where do you suppose YOUR COCCIX comes from?
YOUR Blood Type?
Your Unneeded, even Dangerous, Wisdom Teeth?
they come from OUR predecessor species.*

`
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one source that shows a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species. NONE NADA.
> 
> 
> 
> Not True.
> It's shown regularly.
> For instance..
> *When species have a large gap between them, scientists can (and have 100++ times) predicted there must be intermediate species/subspecies in between.
> And of course the Fossil Record gets filled in more fully Every year with these tweeners that are only predictable BECAUSE of Evolution.*
> 
> `
> You stupid DIPSHIT.
> *Where do you suppose YOUR COCCIX comes from?
> YOUR Blood Type?
> Your Unneeded, even Dangerous, Wisdom Teeth?
> they come from OUR predecessor species.*
> 
> `
> `
Click to expand...

LOL so as I said they GUESS and assume other species were between them BUT there is no ACTUAL evidence of them. There is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to show man evolved from an ape like creature. Starting at the 5 to 7 million year mark and working forward none of the species shown are man and the only LINK to claim they are man is that they may have walked upright in most cases. Further there is NO CONTINUOUS Link from that time to Present. BUT YOUR GUESSES and ASSUMPTIONS are NOT evidence AT ALL. Starting with Neanderthal we have links but the DNA from Neanderthals just proves the current human species mated with them not that they had an descendant link. You can not provide EVIDENCE and instead ADMIT you really on guess, assumptions and make believe. And you call me wrong for pointing it out.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL so as I said they GUESS and assume other species were between them BUT there is no ACTUAL evidence of them. There is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to show man evolved from an ape like creature. Starting at the 5 to 7 million year mark and working forward none of the species shown are man and the only LINK to claim they are man is that they may have walked upright in most cases. Further there is NO CONTINUOUS Link from that time to Present. BUT YOUR GUESSES and ASSUMPTIONS are NOT evidence AT ALL. Starting with Neanderthal we have links but the DNA from Neanderthals just proves the current human species mated with them not that they had an descendant link. You can not provide EVIDENCE and instead ADMIT you really on guess, assumptions and make believe. And you call me wrong for pointing it out.


Yes there is plenty of evidence than man adapted from ape-like creatures.
There are progressions of skull s from apes to men with several falling in between/one could Not call them either.
I'm sure you've seen them and made up some stupid BS to discount them.
And I'm sure you saw my many other threads yo could never answer incl...

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*








						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




"...These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. 
*
For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.* But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence...."

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet not one source that shows a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.


An embarrassingly stupid lie that would get you failed out of 6th grade science.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one source that shows a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> An embarrassingly stupid lie that would get you failed out of 6th grade science.
Click to expand...

And yet you can not in fact show any actual evidence of any such event. All you can do is make assumptions there is no fossil record, there is no physical record and there is no evidence.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you can not in fact show any actual evidence of any such event. All you can do is make assumptions there is no fossil record, there is no physical record and there is no evidence.


There's Plenty of EVIDENCE.
Fossil evidence/ancestry across every specie of plant and animal: Tweeners.

There's anatomical vestiges for the previous speciation on OUR bodies.
Like our Wisdom teeth (when we needed more plant chewing teeth), the Coccyx/Tail remnant, etc. that have no purpose.
READ THE OP IN THIS THREAD YOU ******* MORON.
*ANSWER IT*

There's DNA evidence that parallels and confirms the above.

But we've been through these 100 times and I have previous thread starts on most of them.

BUT you are a STUBBORN INDOCTRINATED STUPID MUTHA***** who cannot absorb the truth lest your whole world fall apart.

No, we don't have million year old videotape you demand as "evidence/proof.

**** You for the 1000th time you male Bimbo.

`


----------



## abu afak

Delta4Embassy said:


> Don't have a tailbone for nothing.


And we don't lose things fast enough.
Wisdom teeth among the vestigal parts from when our diet was different.

'


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you can not in fact show any actual evidence of any such event.


Of course i can. Describe what that evidence would look like. And i will show you some.


----------



## Ringtone

Gen0 said:


> Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science



Indeed, the difference is generally negligible in terms of genetic content.  However, the difference in genetic sequencing and structure is significant resulting in an exponentially significant difference in intelligence and adaptability.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​



And the unfalsifiability of the metaphysical apriority on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated continues to fly right over your head.  _Zoom_

There's nothing you can teach me about the hypothesis of evolution or its alleged empirical justification.  I'm still waiting for you to provide a justification for its underlying apriority, which goes to the evolutionist's interpretation of the the available evidence.  Why do _you_ believe naturalism is true?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the unfalsifiability of the metaphysical apriority on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated continues to fly right over your head.  _Zoom_
Click to expand...


It's hilarious to read your attempts at stringing words into coherent sentences and watch as you get befuddled part way through using terms you don't understand.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the unfalsifiability of the metaphysical apriority on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated continues to fly right over your head.  _Zoom_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious to read your attempts at stringing words into coherent sentences and watch as you get befuddled part way through using terms you don't understand.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the unfalsifiability of the metaphysical apriority on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated continues to fly right over your head.  _Zoom_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious to read your attempts at stringing words into coherent sentences and watch as you get befuddled part way through using terms you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 442457
Click to expand...

One of the conspiracy theories prevalent among ID'iot creationers is the belief that natural processes, nature and natural occurring mechanisms comprise some vast conspiracy of the evilutionist atheist scientists. The (christian) conspiracy theorists insist that their gods are the cause of existence while ignoring their inability to support a rational argument for their supernatural gods.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> An embarrassingly stupid lie that would get you failed out of 6th grade science.



Bubba when to Middle School in the Deep South ... 6th grade is dedicated to keeping brothers from dorking their little sisters ...


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> One of the conspiracy theories prevalent among ID'iot creationers is the belief that natural processes, nature and natural occurring mechanisms comprise some vast conspiracy of the evilutionist atheist scientists. The (christian) conspiracy theorists insist that their gods are the cause of existence while ignoring their inability to support a rational argument for their supernatural gods.



For society at large 3,000 years ago ... supernatural gods worked quite well ... certainly rational in that context ... 
For stupid people today ... aren't we also just saying "because we said so?" ... consider how dumb the average person is, and think that half of us are even dumber ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Indeed, the difference is generally negligible in terms of genetic content. However, the difference in genetic sequencing and structure is significant resulting in an exponentially significant difference in intelligence and adaptability.


Well that there is some hilarious, pseudo-scientific psychobabble.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is like asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
Click to expand...

I'm not clear why you thought was appropriate. Evolution addresses biological life not inanimate objects.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> I'm not clear why you thought was appropriate. Evolution addresses biological life not inanimate objects.



He's just demonstrating that the Y-Chromosome is vestige and contains very little genetic information ... reproductive success only depends on the females ability to survive and raise the young ... most males are superfluous to the continuing of the species and having low brain function allows the males to be cleared out of the resource demand ... when the hungry lion approaches the tribe, it's the women who need the extra genetic material to grab the children and run off ... best if the stupid males stay behind and be macho fighting the lion ... a lion with a belly-full of man won't hunt woman ...

_It ain't me
It's the people that say
Men are leading the women astray
But I say, it's the women today
Smarter than the man in every way_


----------



## Hollie

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not clear why you thought was appropriate. Evolution addresses biological life not inanimate objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just demonstrating that the Y-Chromosome is vestige and contains very little genetic information ... reproductive success only depends on the females ability to survive and raise the young ... most males are superfluous to the continuing of the species and having low brain function allows the males to be cleared out of the resource demand ... when the hungry lion approaches the tribe, it's the women who need the extra genetic material to grab the children and run off ... best if the stupid males stay behind and be macho fighting the lion ... a lion with a belly-full of man won't hunt woman ...
> 
> _It ain't me
> It's the people that say
> Men are leading the women astray
> But I say, it's the women today
> Smarter than the man in every way_
Click to expand...


Yeah. I guess I missed that part.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is like asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not clear why you thought was appropriate. Evolution addresses biological life not inanimate objects.
Click to expand...


English not your first language?

Evolution _*is like*_ asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint


----------



## ReinyDays

CrusaderFrank said:


> English not your first language?
> Evolution _*is like*_ asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint



Why would a wolf be asked to describe a domesticated dog? ... explain yourself ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is like asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not clear why you thought was appropriate. Evolution addresses biological life not inanimate objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English not your first language?
> 
> Evolution _*is like*_ asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
Click to expand...

Francis, you know less than nothing about evolution amd should not even be posting here.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:
			
		

> *there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor*



You are a dishonest blind ****** who is too deluded to acknowledge anything posted..
and certainly can't refute it.

See op.


`


----------



## abu afak

Hollie said:


> And the unfalsifiability of the metaphysical apriority on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated continues to fly right over your head.  _Zoom_
> 
> There's nothing you can teach me about the hypothesis of evolution or its alleged empirical justification.  I'm still waiting for you to provide a justification for its underlying apriority, which goes to the evolutionist's interpretation of the the available evidence.  Why do _you_ believe naturalism is true?


Idiotic non sequitur.

Why would one need "falsifiability" with direct Physical evidence Right there/here on YOUR and humans and other species.
It's not "falsifiable" because it's demonstrably true.
That the sun is the center of the solar system (and warms our planet) isn't falsifiable either.

You're an illogical Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate.
When this is pointed out/OUTED it ends in repeated obnoxious gibberish (ie, irrelevant poetry) or other nonsense.

`

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the unfalsifiability of the metaphysical apriority on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated continues to fly right over your head.  _Zoom_
> 
> There's nothing you can teach me about the hypothesis of evolution or its alleged empirical justification.  I'm still waiting for you to provide a justification for its underlying apriority, which goes to the evolutionist's interpretation of the the available evidence.  Why do _you_ believe naturalism is true?
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic non sequitur.
> 
> Why would one need "falsifiability" with direct Physical evidence Right there/here on YOUR and humans and other species.
> It's not "falsifiable" because it's demonstrably true.
> That the sun is the center of the solar system (and warms our planet) isn't falsifiable either.
> 
> You're an illogical Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate.
> When this is pointed out/OUTED it ends in repeated obnoxious gibberish (ie, irrelevant poetry) or other nonsense.
> 
> `
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You aren't following. Yes, the idea of the Sun being at the center of the Solar System is a "falsifiable" idea. You would only need an image of it not being there or being somewhere else. 

The theory of evolution is also falsifiable. If you found rabbit fossils in the Cambrian, evolution would have a big problem. If our mtDNA studies showed humans more closely related to frogs than to chimpanzees, evolution would have a big problem. 

This is what is meant by "falsifiable".


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Idiotic non sequitur.
> 
> Why would one need "falsifiability" with direct Physical evidence Right there/here on YOUR and humans and other species.
> It's not "falsifiable" because it's demonstrably true.
> That the sun is the center of the solar system (and warms our planet) isn't falsifiable either.
> 
> You're an illogical Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate.
> When this is pointed out/OUTED it ends in repeated obnoxious gibberish (ie, irrelevant poetry) or other nonsense.


Please prove why your religion, namely, naturalism, is true.

_crickets chirping_

Start by proving God doesn't exist. 

_crickets chirping_

Thanks

Winning!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic non sequitur.
> 
> Why would one need "falsifiability" with direct Physical evidence Right there/here on YOUR and humans and other species.
> It's not "falsifiable" because it's demonstrably true.
> That the sun is the center of the solar system (and warms our planet) isn't falsifiable either.
> 
> You're an illogical Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate.
> When this is pointed out/OUTED it ends in repeated obnoxious gibberish (ie, irrelevant poetry) or other nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Please prove why your religion, namely, naturalism, is true.
> 
> _crickets chirping_
> 
> Start by proving God doesn't exist.
> 
> _crickets chirping_
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Winning!
Click to expand...


What, aside from the fact that natural mechanisms are consistent and verified, do the religious extremists need?

The fact that we have no evidence of supernatural mechanisms, the fact that we have no way of testing for supernatural mechanisms and the fact that natural mechanisms and naturally occurring processes provide answers to our understanding of the natural world delineates that the religious extremists insisting on supernatural answers are wrong.

Here’s a tidbit for the religious extremists / supernaturalists, the naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. Scientific theories are studied by methods based on analysis of evidence, and scientists can point to the validity, or failure of the evidence to support the theory.

Let’s have the religious extremists pose their _*General Theory of Supernaturalism. *_

1. Let’s have the religious extremists supply evidence for their *General Theory of Supernaturalism.*

2. Let’s have the religious extremists publish their supporting data, research papers, results of experimentation documenting a flat earth, a 6,000 year old planet, that angels exist and can dance on the head of a pin, that dead people don’t stay dead, that men in nightgowns sit on thrones in the clouds.

Have at it, religion’istas. Show us the magic.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic non sequitur.
> 
> Why would one need "falsifiability" with direct Physical evidence Right there/here on YOUR and humans and other species.
> It's not "falsifiable" because it's demonstrably true.
> That the sun is the center of the solar system (and warms our planet) isn't falsifiable either.
> 
> You're an illogical Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate.
> When this is pointed out/OUTED it ends in repeated obnoxious gibberish (ie, irrelevant poetry) or other nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Please prove why your religion, namely, naturalism, is true.
> 
> _crickets chirping_
> 
> Start by proving God doesn't exist.
> 
> _crickets chirping_
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Winning!
Click to expand...


I have already proved your gods do not exist.

Prove I haven’t.

Thanks, sweetie. Note that I’m simply holding you to the same standard you want to impose on others; the “prove it isn’t” standard, such as it is.

The religion’ista “disprove my gods” is one used by many religion’istas of many stripes and mental illnesses. Your task now is to disprove the gods competing with your gods.

Post you various disproofs.

Thanks.


----------



## LittleNipper

Old Rocks said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.
> 
> I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Freewill   Your vast ignorance is once again apparent. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary science. Therefore, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play when the chemicals start replicating in a manner that creates a unique organism, something that remains close to the same through many generations. Chemisty and physics do not operate by chance. And abiogenisis is not a matter of chance, but of the elements acting in the manner that the rules of this universe dictate.
Click to expand...

So, people who are content with believing in evolution, as the means all the species came about, are more than likely to accept natural abiogenisis. Those that accept creation are not ignorant of the implications, but it would seem evolutionists love to make creationists seem confused.  The logic (from a creationist's stand point) is that GOD created life (nature through "elements acting in the manner that the rules of this Universe dictate") did not and cannot. And the logic (from a creationists point of view) is that chemicals cannot replicate in a manner to create a new divergent species incapable of reproduction with its ancestral species.

The very proof of this logic (that of the creationist) is that educated human intervention has been unable to do willfully produce what evolutionists dictate happened naturally according to the "dictates of the Universe".  The creationist doesn't conclude possible what evolutionists cannot induce with scientific intent.  Abiogenisis has NEVER been demonstrated to occur under any circumstances. And breeders have only been able to produce hybrids. The proof of this is the seldom mentioned fact that when a hurricane decimated the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's finches stated to interbred. THEY WERE NOT DIFFERENT SPECIES.   

On the other-hand, because GOD has been demonstrated to exist because LIFE exists without any "natural" causes. GOD has been proven to exist by countless lives that have inexplicably been chanced and renewed/redirected because of some interaction or event that does move into the supernatural. The supernatural cannot exist without an essence that acts outside the realms of nature in ways unimaginable and inexplicable that provides meaning to chains of historic events that follow a progressive or digressive cause and effect ---- all pointing to an ultimate conclusion.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is like asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not clear why you thought was appropriate. Evolution addresses biological life not inanimate objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English not your first language?
> 
> Evolution _*is like*_ asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
Click to expand...

I see. You’re among those who believe that science is one, vast global conspiracy?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is like asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not clear why you thought was appropriate. Evolution addresses biological life not inanimate objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English not your first language?
> 
> Evolution _*is like*_ asking a wall to describe a fresh coat of paint
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. You’re among those who believe that science is one, vast global conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Science isn't involved in a conspiracy ------ self-centered humans are.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> *....On the other-hand, because GOD has been demonstrated to exist because LIFE exists without any "natural" causes. GOD has been proven to exist by countless lives that have inexplicably been chanced and renewed/redirected* because of some interaction or event that does move into the supernatural. The supernatural cannot exist without an essence that acts outside the realms of nature in ways unimaginable and inexplicable that provides meaning to chains of historic events that follow a progressive or digressive cause and effect ---- all pointing to an ultimate conclusion.


When you have proof, or even a shred of Evidence that god exists, go get your Nobel Prize.
Of course, at least 75% of people believe in different gods than your ARROGANT SELF DOES.
You're a preaching IDIOT with no business in a science section.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Science isn't involved in a conspiracy ------ self-centered humans are.


Evolution and a 13-billion year old universe are ideas that are a lot less "human-centric" than a god creating everything just for us so that he can choose which of us live forever. I don't think you thought that one through very well.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> Please prove why your religion, namely, naturalism, is true.


It's not my 'religion.'
I deal in hard facts and Evidence when it come to science. The best you can do is lies and Inference/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. (God of the Gaps)

I don't have a religion.
It's you who've Fabricated a mountain of Faux Filosofy and idiotic strawmen to allow for your religion/god.



> *Start by proving God doesn't exist.*


O look, prove a negative!
Please prove I'm not god.


`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> I deal in hard facts and Evidence when it come to science.


You mean like we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?  Hard facts like that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deal in hard facts and Evidence when it come to science.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?  Hard facts like that?
Click to expand...

*slaps ding

Stop that


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deal in hard facts and Evidence when it come to science.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?  Hard facts like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *slaps ding
> 
> Stop that
Click to expand...

Should I have said hard facts like computer models and calling theories facts?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deal in hard facts and Evidence when it come to science.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?  Hard facts like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *slaps ding
> 
> Stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I have said hard facts like computer models and calling theories facts?
Click to expand...

No, you should have stayed on topic and not created patented Ding situation #4,765,903 where someone is expected to explain away your misrepresentations of things they have said.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deal in hard facts and Evidence when it come to science.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we are in an ice age and you want the planet to be colder?  Hard facts like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *slaps ding
> 
> Stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I have said hard facts like computer models and calling theories facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you should have stayed on topic and not created patented Ding situation #4,765,903 where someone is expected to explain away your misrepresentations of things they have said.
Click to expand...

Sue me.  The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate is a bigger wanker than you are.  Feel free to take his place.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Sue me.


Nah, I will slap ya

*slap


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate


People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.

And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sue me.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I will slap ya
> 
> *slap
Click to expand...

If you really believed that, then there is nothing on God's green earth that would be able to keep you from doing that.

So the real reason you aren't going to do it is you are afraid of being the one getting slapped around.  It's the same thing abu is afraid of.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
Click to expand...

You are a coward. 

If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please prove why your religion, namely, naturalism, is true.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my 'religion.'
> I deal in hard facts and Evidence when it come to science. The best you can do is lies and Inference/Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. (God of the Gaps)
> 
> I don't have a religion.
> It's you who've Fabricated a mountain of Faux Filosofy and idiotic strawmen to allow for your religion/god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Start by proving God doesn't exist.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O look, prove a negative!
> Please prove I'm not god.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Facts and evidence of science, eh? So why do you invoke logic . . . badly?  

Yeah.  You have a religion, namely, philosophical/ontological naturalism to be precise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
Click to expand...

I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you would answer the question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
Click to expand...

Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

The question would make more sense to you if you accepted the premise of the hypothetical question which is the driver for speciation is genetic mutation rather than natural selection.  IF that were the case, would it still be called the theory of evolution?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question would make more sense to you if you accepted the premise of the hypothetical question which is the driver for speciation is genetic mutation rather than natural selection.  IF that were the case, would it still be called the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

No idea. Evolution has 5 mechanisms that i know of.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question would make more sense to you if you accepted the premise of the hypothetical question which is the driver for speciation is genetic mutation rather than natural selection.  IF that were the case, would it still be called the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. Evolution has 5 mechanisms that i know of.
Click to expand...

Ah.... so you could keep calling it the theory of evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question would make more sense to you if you accepted the premise of the hypothetical question which is the driver for speciation is genetic mutation rather than natural selection.  IF that were the case, would it still be called the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. Evolution has 5 mechanisms that i know of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.... so you could keep calling it the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

I guess...? Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest blind ****** who is too deluded to acknowledge anything posted..
> and certainly can't refute it.
> 
> See op.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


I speak the truth because it's based on the Bible and science backing up the Bible even though its not a science book.  It's you who are a "dishonest blind ****** who is deluded."  No need to believe in the fairy tale of evolution.

You are a square peg in a round hole.

There are no vestigial organs such as the appendix as we find they have a purpose of holding good bacteria.  You didn't know it because of your biased ignorance.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question would make more sense to you if you accepted the premise of the hypothetical question which is the driver for speciation is genetic mutation rather than natural selection.  IF that were the case, would it still be called the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. Evolution has 5 mechanisms that i know of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.... so you could keep calling it the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess...? Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms.
Click to expand...

It's the cornerstone of Darwin's theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question would make more sense to you if you accepted the premise of the hypothetical question which is the driver for speciation is genetic mutation rather than natural selection.  IF that were the case, would it still be called the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. Evolution has 5 mechanisms that i know of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.... so you could keep calling it the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess...? Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the cornerstone of Darwin's theory.
Click to expand...

We have learned a lot since then.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy I tweaked for running away from a discussion on climate
> 
> 
> 
> People "run" from you, because you are a pest. Your two favorite tactics are to change the discussion to everyone's credentials (odd, considering you have none in any of these fields), and to annoy people to death by trying to force them to spend all the time and effort in the discussion dealing with your strawmen and non sequiturs and misrepresentations of what they have said. Such as your pathetic, loaded comment I slapped you for.
> 
> And, by "run", I mean not respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a coward.
> 
> If the driver for the rich diversity of life that we see in the wild and in the fossil record is genetic mutation instead of natural selection, would it still be called the theory of evolution?  Or would it be called something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am trying to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought it was kind of dumb. Answer is: i don't know and don't even know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question would make more sense to you if you accepted the premise of the hypothetical question which is the driver for speciation is genetic mutation rather than natural selection.  IF that were the case, would it still be called the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. Evolution has 5 mechanisms that i know of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.... so you could keep calling it the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess...? Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the cornerstone of Darwin's theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have learned a lot since then.
Click to expand...

Sure have.









						Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						What Darwin Got Wrong - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> It's not "falsifiable" because it's demonstrably true.
> That the sun is the center of the solar system (and warms our planet) isn't falsifiable either.



You don't know what the meaning of _falsifiable_ is, dumb basturd.  The sun is the below the galactic center.  What smart people do is present what is falsifiable for a theory and then show evidence to show and test that it is true.



abu afak said:


> You're an illogical Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate.
> When this is pointed out/OUTED it ends in repeated obnoxious gibberish (ie, irrelevant poetry) or other nonsense.



Lol, you're calling Hollie a "Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate."  It's you who cannot debate and gets posters mixed up b/c you are a simpleton with a moronic IQ mind.  God, beauty, and complexity takes more than an IQ that matches the low temperatures of the day.  It was 41 degrees F where I am this morning.  Anyway, it's no wonder this thread has been a miserable failure.

One can just dismiss it because it was started by a MORON.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "falsifiable" because it's demonstrably true.
> That the sun is the center of the solar system (and warms our planet) isn't falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the meaning of _falsifiable_ is, dumb basturd.  The sun is the below the galactic center.  What smart people do is present what is falsifiable for a theory and then show evidence to show and test that it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an illogical Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate.
> When this is pointed out/OUTED it ends in repeated obnoxious gibberish (ie, irrelevant poetry) or other nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol, you're calling Hollie a "Lying Jesus Freak who cannot debate."  It's you who cannot debate and gets posters mixed up b/c you are a simpleton with a moronic IQ mind.  God, beauty, and complexity takes more than an IQ that matches the low temperatures of the day.  It was 41 degrees F where I am this morning.  Anyway, it's no wonder this thread has been a miserable failure.
> 
> One can just dismiss it because it was started by a MORON.
Click to expand...

I quoted the wrong person- or should I say, took the quote out of an exchange and used Hollie's name by Mistake.
Obvious to everyone else including her.
But not you, you Institutionalized religious freak.
Stop hogging the machine and give the other patients a chance.

This thread is not a failure, like all of mine it's a KILLER, and cuts the legs out from under your side.
(my threads designed so with Haymaker-Blow titles.
You have not "Falsified" this centuries old FACT (twice as old as evolution) in any way.
Read the OP again brainwashed wack job.

`
`


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> g to help you, ding. People get tired of your silly distractions and fetishes. People don't like having you suck all of the oxygen out of a discussion by forcing them to spend all their time correcting your intentional misrepresentations of what they say. They don't want to trade credentials with you, and your credentials mean exactly jack shit anyway.


He one-lines my threads.
He desperately needs attention.
Oft 5 in a row.


----------



## sealybobo

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​


Can you explain what all this means to us laymen? There is so much evidence for evolution. It’s overwhelming.

The reason evolution bothers theists is because it means we aren’t special. We are just another animal. And we understand why we became more intelligent over a long period of time.


----------



## sealybobo

Freewill said:


> Gen0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.
> 
> I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not.  But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.  the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
Click to expand...

No evolution doesn’t explain the creation of life but it gets us closer to an understanding. Like, we know we came from the water. All land animals did. Whales used to be land animals.

And we had creatures roaming the planet for millions of years before humans. Trilobites and tardigrades.

Religion will eventually change their story so it jives with evolution. It must say somewhere in the Bible god planted the seed of life. Well that’s your out. That’s all god did. Planted the seed of life and let evolution take over. I could buy that story


----------



## Mindful

"This isn’t a painting. It is the most detailed image of a human cell to date, obtained by radiography, nuclear magnetic resonance and cryoelectron microscopy."


----------



## abu afak

The brainwashed mental patient  james bond says there's no evidence we 'came from monkeys.'
There is of course, and there's evidence IN EVERY Human/Homo/Primate, and all long the chain of life that species came from each other.
HARD evidence.
of Evolution.
One big part of an overwhelming body of such.

`
`


----------



## Wuwei

Mindful said:


> "This isn’t a painting. It is the most detailed image of a human cell to date, obtained by radiography, nuclear magnetic resonance and cryoelectron microscopy."


It's a great picture, but unfortunately it is an artistic rendering. I had a hard time finding the original source.  I was hoping it was real. Also you don't get colors from the three types of instruments mentioned. 








						Cellular landscape
					

Created for Cell Signaling Technology, Inc., and inspired by the stunning art of David Goodsell, this 3D rendering of a eukaryotic cell is modeled using X-ray, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and cryo-electron microscopy datasets for all of its molecular actors. It is an attempt to...




					gaelmcgill.artstation.com
				




.


----------



## abu afak

Wuwei said:


> It's a great picture, but unfortunately it is an artistic rendering. I had a hard time finding the original source.  I was hoping it was real. Also you don't get colors from the three types of instruments mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellular landscape
> 
> 
> Created for Cell Signaling Technology, Inc., and inspired by the stunning art of David Goodsell, this 3D rendering of a eukaryotic cell is modeled using X-ray, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and cryo-electron microscopy datasets for all of its molecular actors. It is an attempt to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gaelmcgill.artstation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I've seen it all over FB.
Nice pic tho.


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> [.......]Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures.*​
> ​


james bond can't answer or even acknowledge the fact and certainly not the obvious answer.
Common Descent.

And note I post Blockbuster thread titles trumpeting Evidence of Evolution.
Haymakers.

James Bond posts NONE for a god.
Zero.
There is none.
`


----------



## james bond

I posted that science backs up Genesis in the Bible.  Those are the parts that I post.  I still don't get why I would post evidence for a God in the S&T section.

The creation scientists and I have established the Anthropic Principle.  Those are parameters that one can test.

We also have answers for how the universe came to be than "I don't know."  That was presented with KCA.  The one given by the atheist weirdo here was the silliest response ever in this forum.  He could have just sang, "I'm a Loser."

There is no common descent nor common ancestor.  That is just a mythical atheist belief for them to believe how humans came from animals.  The regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions demonstrate the complexity that requires intelligence behind it to create the its design.  We can't even have a car being put together by itself by throwing its parts around.  That's less complex.  You saw the picture above of the human cell and the atheists do not realize that can't happen by chance.  They prolly haven't read On the Origin of Species nor can they explain.  I can understand its marvel.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I posted that science backs up Genesis in the Bible.  Those are the parts that I post.  I still don't get why I would post evidence for a God in the S&T section.
> 
> The creation scientists and I have established the Anthropic Principle.  Those are parameters that one can test.
> 
> We also have answers for how the universe came to be than "I don't know."  That was presented with KCA.  The one given by the atheist weirdo here was the silliest response ever in this forum.  He could have just sang, "I'm a Loser."
> 
> There is no common descent nor common ancestor.  That is just a mythical atheist belief for them to believe how humans came from animals.  The regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions demonstrate the complexity that requires intelligence behind it to create the its design.  We can't even have a car being put together by itself by throwing its parts around.  That's less complex.  You saw the picture above of the human cell and the atheists do not realize that can't happen by chance.  They prolly haven't read On the Origin of Species nor can they explain.  I can understand its marvel.


This is all the same nonsense you have been cutting and pasting since you began spamming the science forums with your extremist religious beliefs. 

Take your bible thumping to the religion forum.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> This is all the same nonsense you have been cutting and pasting since you began spamming the science forums with your extremist religious beliefs.
> 
> Take your bible thumping to the religion forum.


I've told you many times that I only discuss the parts where science backs up the Bible.  That is creation science.

For example, we found that the Bible stated that the Earth is spherical which was a winning statement back then when atheists thought the Earth was flat.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I've told you many times that I only discuss the parts where science backs up the Bible.  That is creation science.
> 
> For example, we found that the Bible stated that the Earth is spherical which was a winning statement back then when atheists thought the Earth was flat.


That's simply false. Another of your Jimmy Swaggert stylized absurdities.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> That's simply false. Another of your Jimmy Swaggert stylized absurdities.


If I was an atheist, then I would be troubled, worried, and convinced.  There's KCA, the Anthropic Principle (which the atheist scientists discovered), and eyewitnesses from both sides of a _supernatural_ event.

The evolutionists have nothing observable, no logical argument, have a system where only atheist scientists can be published, had their scientists caught in a lie in the past, and worse.  I say find an alien somewhere besides Earth, show a bipedal monkey, do an experiment using dark energy and matter or showing it to us, or come up with an anti-KCA logic, then you'll have something.

You, yourself, was forced to go to the Jimmy card from the flat Earth card.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> If I was an atheist, then I would be troubled, worried, and convinced.  There's KCA, the Anthropic Principle (which the atheist scientists discovered), and eyewitnesses from both sides of a _supernatural_ event.
> *The evolutionists have nothing observable, no logical argument,* have a system where only atheist scientists can be published, had their scientists caught in a lie in the past, and worse.  I say find an alien somewhere besides Earth, show a bipedal monkey, do an experiment using dark energy and matter or showing it to us, or come up with an anti-KCA logic, then you'll have something.
> 
> You, yourself, was forced to go to the Jimmy card from the flat Earth card.


1. Everything from the last century is observable.

2. ie, all my thread starts like Anatomical Vestiges are observable in many creatures.
*All the Evidence for Evolution is observable because we still have it.
The ever increasing Fossil record of between species (with ie, bones that are increasingly more human and less ape, but not pure either).

All the technology (electronics, medicine, etc) we use today, including the computers we type on are observable science from the last 100 years.*
Where is your Evidence of a god in the last 100 years?

3. Your god is no more observable than the Islamic or Hindu one or 10,000 other patched together religious FABLES.
Divinity is NOT Observable you wildly deluded freak and there is NO evidence.
*The Bible Fable is not evidence any more that the Koranic one, or Hindu one, or the North American Indian Bear God.*

3a. Bond is back to Circular/Circle Jerk reasoning. Bible-God-Bible-God-Bible.
*You need extra-Biblical Hard Evidence, not a closed circuit brainwash.*
I posted some/a lot, you have posted NONE.
And you have to LIE a lot and use laugh-logic because you have Zero evidence.

`


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> I posted that science backs up Genesis in the Bible.  Those are the parts that I post.  I still don't get why I would post evidence for a God in the S&T section.
> 
> The creation scientists and I have established the Anthropic Principle.  Those are parameters that one can test.
> 
> We also have answers for how the universe came to be than "I don't know."  That was presented with KCA.  The one given by the atheist weirdo here was the silliest response ever in this forum.  He could have just sang, "I'm a Loser."
> 
> There is no common descent nor common ancestor.  That is just a mythical atheist belief for them to believe how humans came from animals.  The regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions demonstrate the complexity that requires intelligence behind it to create the its design.  We can't even have a car being put together by itself by throwing its parts around.  That's less complex.  You saw the picture above of the human cell and the atheists do not realize that can't happen by chance.  They prolly haven't read On the Origin of Species nor can they explain.  I can understand its marvel.



There is not a single word in science where they support the bible. 
You are a liar unless you can provide the link. 
There is no such thing as a creation scientist. That's an oxymoron.


----------



## abu afak

Colin norris said:


> There is not a single word in science where they support the bible.
> You are a liar unless you can provide the link.
> There is no such thing as a creation scientist. That's an oxymoron.



My thread of a few days ago.
Since he has no evidence he uses Circular/closed circuit reasoning
Bible-God-Bible-God-Bible.





__





						LOL - "Creation Science" - LOL
					

Creation science or scientific creationism is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.   It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> If I was an atheist, then I would be troubled, worried, and convinced.  There's KCA, the Anthropic Principle (which the atheist scientists discovered), and eyewitnesses from both sides of a _supernatural_ event.
> 
> The evolutionists have nothing observable, no logical argument, have a system where only atheist scientists can be published, had their scientists caught in a lie in the past, and worse.  I say find an alien somewhere besides Earth, show a bipedal monkey, do an experiment using dark energy and matter or showing it to us, or come up with an anti-KCA logic, then you'll have something.
> 
> You, yourself, was forced to go to the Jimmy card from the flat Earth card.


As usual, you are mindlessly cutting and pasting all the same nonsense that comes out of your madrassah.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> As usual, you are mindlessly cutting and pasting all the same nonsense that comes out of your madrassah.


I have to wonder whose sock this clown is. There is a perfectly good thread in the religion section for him to appropriately put on his childish display. But he is avoiding it, in favor of inappropriately spamming the science section.


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​


Its called intelligent DNA.  All living creatures are equipped with a DNA signature that allows for life to adapt to its natural surroundings.   Again........with a BS example of "horizontal movement WITHIN SPECIES"?   Simply because some sections of DNA is not activated, because there is no need....proves what, except INTELLIGENT DESIGN? 

Darwinian Evolution....the type taught to our children has nothing in common with the necessity of Horizontal changes that are common to all examples of life on earth.  If man did not possess the ability to adapt to his surroundings.......he would have become extinct with the first major weather change or when he first encountered a virus.   

Darwin teaches that Man evolved from dead matter with the ability to randomly change species in order to adapt.   Man evolved from FISH?  Really?  Just how does this study prove VERTICAL EVOLUTION by natural selection to be a fact?  

Vertical Evolution:  As defined by Oxford, "The process by whereby an ancestral species changes through time (without splitting) to become distinctively different, and therefore recognized as a NEW SPECIES." 

To hell with Pasteur?   Biogenesis - Wikipedia


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Its called intelligent DNA


DNA has no intelligence. DNA does not do anything with purpose or intent. It has no self awareness. Just because something looks fancy to you -- a person who knows next to nothing about any related topic -- doesn't prove it is "design". It merely "kinda, sorta" feels that way to you.

In fact, that's why you hate the theory of evolution" it shows that things that appear "designed:" were not designed and require no designer. So you are about 150 years behind the rest of the world.

And your use of Pasteur's experiment is specious. It does not contradict a single principle of evolution or abiogenesis. You embarrass yourself to claim it does.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In fact, that's why you hate the theory of evolution" it shows that things that appear "designed:" were not designed and require no designer. So you are about 150 years behind the rest of the world.


Do you believe the Roswell Rock, i.e. ancient aliens, then?  History channel is pretty legit.  I post it for the easily fooled here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Do you believe the Roswell Rock, i.e. ancient aliens, then?


Nope.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Its called intelligent DNA.  All living creatures are equipped with a DNA signature that allows for life to adapt to its natural surroundings.   Again........with a BS example of "horizontal movement WITHIN SPECIES"?   Simply because some sections of DNA is not activated, because there is no need....proves what, except INTELLIGENT DESIGN?



Useless organs, even dangerous ones like Wisdom Teeth (from when we were herbivorous and lived in trees) can and have killed people.
But for the advent of Modern dentistry the human population would be gradually purged of the majority who get them.
The Coxxis/former tail also a useless remnant from when we lived in trees.

*That's NOT "intelligent," it's what you'd a expect from a continuing/common descent Pile/build-up of trial and error mutations you Moron.*

The rest is all useless CRAP about what others call Micro vs Macro evolution
But it's really the same ongoing continued distancing that leads to other species.
And the EVIDENCE for that is Overwhelming: fossil and otherwise.
And btw WE are not special creation, we are still evolving as is all life.

Another kweationist klown.

`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Do you believe the Roswell Rock, i.e. ancient aliens, then?  History channel is pretty legit.  I post it for the easily fooled here.


You of course like the conspiratorial crap on Ancient Aliens.
(what happened to Genesis?)
The worst show on History or on any channel. Catering to the LCD/Lowest Common denominator conspiracy crowd.
More magic BS that is just up your BS magic alley.
No real science.
It figures.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You of course like the conspiratorial crap on Ancient Aliens.
> (what happened to Genesis?)
> The worst show on History or on any channel. Catering to the LCD/Lowest Common denominator conspiracy crowd.
> More magic BS that is just up your BS magic alley.
> No real science.
> It figures.
> 
> `


Do you have any observable evidence for aliens?  Of course, not.  Aliens don't exist except in sci-fi.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Do you have any observable evidence for aliens?  Of course, not.  Aliens don't exist except in sci-fi.


No and neither do you.
So why are you posting and glorifying youtubes about them you Crazy Freak?

I see you gave up on the real on topical debate because you LOST like 100 times in one this thread alone.

`


----------



## Clyde 154

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DNA has no intelligence. DNA does not do anything with purpose or intent. It has no self awareness. Just because something looks fancy to you -- a person who knows next to nothing about any related topic -- doesn't prove it is "design". It merely "kinda, sorta" feels that way to you.
> 
> In fact, that's why you hate the theory of evolution" it shows that things that appear "designed:" were not designed and require no designer. So you are about 150 years behind the rest of the world.
> 
> And your use of Pasteur's experiment is specious. It does not contradict a single principle of evolution or abiogenesis. You embarrass yourself to claim it does.


Really DNA has no purpose or intent?     If Pasteur's experiment is SPCIOUS......why don't you present a single scientific experiment that does not falsify ABIOGENESIS.  Of the 1000s of experiments conducted attempting to prove abiogenesis, simply present the one that affirms such a theory.   Why would Pasteur waste time attempting to falsify something that has been falsified numerous times previously.  Now THAT IS EMBARRASSING.  Pasteur indeed attempted to allow life to grow from nothing based upon all previous theories of ABIOGENSIS.  Pasteur proved that it takes life to reproduce life, and that can only be reproduced WITHIN SPECIES.

First you declare that DNA has no indicators of design........when design is the very purpose of DNA.  Please enlighten us, show us any example of life that does not have a DNA signature specific to that particular species.  Just one.  Even the fetus that you would sacrifice in the womb has a personal identifying DNA signature that is unique to every other life form on earth, even to that of both parents.  Talk about willful ignorance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Really DNA has no purpose or intent?


Please read more slowly and try to understand ideas before commenting. This is the science section, not the Sunday revival.

I said DNA does nothing with purpose or intent. Any more so than does a water molecule.

Following?


Clyde 154 said:


> Pasteur's experiment is SPCIOUS


Also not what I said. You either do not read well, or you are a dishonest troll who intentionally misrepresents people.

Go back, re-read, maybe attempt some comments that are both coherent and relevant to the comments to which you are responding. Or stick to the Rubber Room.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Really DNA has no purpose or intent?     If Pasteur's experiment is SPCIOUS......why don't you present a single scientific experiment that does not falsify ABIOGENESIS.  Of the 1000s of experiments conducted attempting to prove abiogenesis, simply present the one that affirms such a theory.   Why would Pasteur waste time attempting to falsify something that has been falsified numerous times previously.  Now THAT IS EMBARRASSING.
> 
> First you declare that DNA has no indicators of design........when DNA design is the very purpose of DNA.  Please enlighten us, show any example of life that does not have a DNA signature specific to that particular species.  Just one.  Even the fetus that you would sacrifice in the womb has a personal identifying DNA signature that is unique to every other life form on earth, even to that of both parents.  Talk about willful ignorance.


DNA's has no "Intent," it's an organic chemical with no brain.
It's just what life happened to start with. (it could have been QVC and maybe is 300 light years from here)
And it's not intelligent.
It's trial and error.
Better adapted ones to the evolving climate survive better, worse go EXTINCT.
Who 'designed' that?
What happened to Dinosaurs? Mammoths? Saber Tooth Tigers?
Needless suffering and animal genocide is intelligent?

We have "vertical and horizontal" because of ERROR/Mutation of it.
Just keep going 'horizontal' for long enough and you will end up vertical/separate.

A smart design would be clean and simple.
No mutations, birth defects, etc no Vanishing species from 'perfect' Genesis.
Humans, if truly special/intelligent design, and non-evolved, could be solid state, no messy organ, no DNA etc.
THAT would prove something!
Instead we are 98.6% DNA similar to Chimps, as Evo would predict.

The universe also Chaotic.
Colliding Galaxies, exploding stars, etc (which may take billions/trillions/quadrillions of living things)
`


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> Useless organs, even dangerous ones like Wisdom Teeth (from when we were herbivorous and lived in trees) can and have killed people.
> But for the advent of Modern dentistry the human population would be gradually purged of the majority who get them.
> The Coxxis/former tail also a useless remnant from when we lived in trees.
> 
> *That's NOT "intelligent," it's what you'd a expect from a continuing/common descent Pile/build-up of trial and error mutations you Moron.*
> 
> The rest is all useless CRAP about what others call Micro vs Macro evolution
> But it's really the same ongoing continued distancing that leads to other species.
> And the EVIDENCE for that is Overwhelming: fossil and otherwise.
> And btw WE are not special creation, we are still evolving as is all life.
> 
> Another kweationist klown.


What?  How think do you stupid people to be?  Don't watch your left hand behind the curtain pay no attention .......Watch the right hand and pretend that evolution is confirmed because there are examples of adaptation WITHIN SPECIES.

Vertical Evolution:

Horizontal Evolution:  

One is truth..........the other is but a theory that cannot find the evidence required to be A LAW OF EVOLUTION. 

Just show us THIS LAW.  You will not because it does not exist. 



Again........REAL SLOW...........like you are the 5 year old you are pretending everyone else to be.  Evolution within species is a FACT of science and it rests with a complete and whole DNA signature.  A mutation is a DNA strain that is missing a link and is less than perfect.   You can present all the examples of adaption WITHIN SPECIES you want, but you are yet to present the first example of something evolving into a totally different species.  

  Simply because life within species can adapt to its surroundings does not prove Darwinian Evolution from dead matter nor does it prove that one species can EVOLVE into a totally different species.  A K9 will always be a k9 regardless of all subspecies of that species.  Primate will always be primates.  What?  Are living fossils that exist today just to stupid to evolve into man?  Why have not all primates evolved into humans......just the very smart one?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> ? How think do you stupid people to be?


And this where you get reminded that every well educated person on the planet accepts evolution as a fact, unless their minds are addled by mythology. Which is a very small percentage of them. You are embarrassing yourself. Especially in light of some of the very stupid things you have said, and the very stupid behavior you have displayed.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> What?  How think do you stupid people to be?  Don't watch your left hand behind the curtain pay no attention .......Watch the right hand and pretend that evolution is confirmed because there are examples of adaptation WITHIN SPECIES.
> 
> Vertical Evolution:
> 
> Horizontal Evolution:
> 
> One is truth..........the other is but a theory that cannot find the evidence required to be A LAW OF EVOLUTION.
> 
> Just show us THIS LAW.  You will not because it does not exist.


LOFL
NO such thing Clown, unless you're reading Kweationist websites.




Clyde 154 said:


> Again........REAL SLOW...........like you are the 5 year old you are pretending everyone else to be.  Evolution within species is a FACT of science and it rests with a complete and whole DNA signature.  A mutation is a DNA strain that is missing a link and is less than perfect.   You can present all the examples of adaption WITHIN SPECIES you want, but you are yet to present the first example of something evolving into a totally different species.
> 
> Simply because life within species can adapt to its surroundings does not prove Darwinian Evolution from dead matter nor does it prove that one species can EVOLVE into a totally different species.  A K9 will always be a k9 regardless of all subspecies of that species.  Primate will always be primates.  What?  Are living fossils that exist today just to stupid to evolve into man?  Why have not all primates evolved into humans......just the very smart one?  [


Evolution between species is also a documented FACT.
Dozens of Fossil creatures/Tweeners gradually changing (in our case) from Ape to more human for over 5 million years.

from "15 answers to creationist nonsense."
Scientific American
My thread of that title and link here:





__





						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense By John Rennie - July 1, 2002 Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ [.....]  1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.  Many people learned in Elementary School that...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




*"..For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.*​But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). *Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly..."*​​​*`*​


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> DNA's has no "Intent," it's an organic chemical with no brain.
> It's just what life happened to start with. (it could have been QVC and maybe is 300 light years from here)
> And it's not intelligent.
> It's trial and error.
> Better adapted ones to the evolving climate survive better, worse go EXTINCT.
> Who 'designed' that?
> Wat happened to Dinosaurs? Mammoths? Saber Tooth Tigers?
> 
> We have "vertical and horizontal" because of ERROR/Mutation of it.
> Just keep going 'horizontal' for long enough and you will end up vertical/separate.
> 
> A smart design would be clean and simple.
> No mutations, birth defects, etc no Vanishing species from 'perfect' Genesis..
> 
> The universe also Chaotic. Colliding Galaxies, exploding stars, etc (which may take billions/trillions/quadrillions of living things)
> `


Again.  Show me the LAW OF EVOLUTION as confirmed via the Scientific Method.  You will not........you continue to present logical fallacies because there is no such Law found in Nature.  It's very simple.

And your ignorance of scripture is quite amusing.   Genesis created the perfect example of life........and it only began to decay because of Sin.   When sin entered the world........man was cursed with physical decay and death.  With each proceeding generation mankind's life cycle was reduced the further away from the ADAM GENE it became because there no longer existed the perfect environment for long or eternal life.

Read the scriptures.  First, the Scriptures agree with Pasteur, Life begets life, within species (Genesis 1:24-26)

Adam lived 130 years and begat a Son called Seth.....and he lived to at least the age of 800 (Genesis 5:3-4)  This is after Cain and Able.  Even though Cain and Able were the 1st children of Adam and Eve, the scriptures make it clear that they had at least 3 more sons and 2 daughters, they most likely had a great many more that is not mentioned in scripture.......a reproductive life of 800 years is a long time.

All this proves is that in the beginning the DNA of man was perfect......as there were no mutations from corrupted line of descent....ADAM was made perfect, but after being forced from his perfect environment because of sin.......the human life began a gradual decay to finally being limited to a little over 3 score and 10 (Ps. 90:10)

What this also proves is that in the beginning with the perfect man....incest was not a problem because the DNA had not been corrupted by outside sources.   You can't get more incestuous than marrying yourself.  Eve was created directly from the flesh Adam......a rib. (Genesis 2:22)

Thus.........who did Cain marry after the death of Able?  Clearly he married a sister..........a practice that with time, the further away from Adam the generations came.......was forbidden because of the genetic diseases that can occur today when 2 close relatives marry.   When the world was new, mutations that can enter the gene pool (the taking away of a perfect DNA) had not yet entered the gene pool.

It is for this reason that Adam was allowed to Marry Eve who was taken directly from Adams gene pool.   There was no concern with any type of mutation in the beginning.  Over time as clearly recorded in the Holy Scriptures you can witness the changing of this social more',  Abraham was married to his half sister and this was perfectly acceptable (Genesis 20:1-20).   Jumping ahead to the record found in Leviticus there was a law that prohibited marriage between anyone closer than a cousin. (Lev. 18:6-18), today that social more' and law has been limited to 2nd cousins and further removed.  Such as was the case when FDR married his cousin etc.,

What you are demonstrating is the fact that the scriptures are presenting TRUTH.   Mutation never adds unto any existing perfect DNA signature........it takes away and corrupts that which was at one point PERFECT and it deforms life, it never makes it better. 

It think it very amusing when someone digs up an example of a deformed human and claims its an example of the missing link.  Like Lucy.......when they admit that she has human teeth and had human diseases ....... while they never consider the very likely circumstance that what they have found is an example of isolated incestuous inbreeding to the point of deformity. Or they find a fish that is deformed due to mutation.......with one eye and half a dorsal fin.  "See......its an example of a fish attempting grow a leg...." LMAOo


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> LOFL
> NO such thing Clown, unless you're reading Kweationist websites.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution between species is also a documented FACT.
> Dozens of Fossil creatures/Tweeners gradually changing (in our case) from Ape to more human for over 5 million years.
> 
> from "15 answers to creationist nonsense."
> Scientific American
> My thread of that title and link here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense By John Rennie - July 1, 2002 Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ [.....]  1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.  Many people learned in Elementary School that...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"..For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.*​But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). *Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly..."*​​​*`*​


Again.......if evolution between species exists.  Show me the Law of Evolution.  You continue to present a logical fallacy and pretend that a theory is a fact of science and truth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Show me the LAW OF EVOLUTION as confirmed via the Scientific Method


A very dumb thing to say that shows your ignorance of the entire topic of science in general, much less just evolution.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Again.  Show me the LAW OF EVOLUTION as confirmed via the Scientific Method.  You will not........you continue to present logical fallacies because there is no such Law found in Nature.  It's very simple.


You're a science illiterate and you could NOT answer me
We have millions of Fossils that demonstrate movement 'vertically.'
Period
No refutation
You Lost.

Science doesn't deal in laws or proof
It deals in Theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and scores of New sciences non contradict and some support.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT 'SCIENTIFIC THEORY' MEANS YOU MORON.
It's the strongest statement science can make about the universe.









						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]
*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."*




Clyde 154 said:


> And your ignorance of scripture is quite amusing.


Genesis is an impossible fairy tale and there's No DNA. No dinosaurs, nothing.
Just 6 days.
LOFL
Post religion in the religion section with the other Voodoos.


Read the SCIAM link
All your questions/IDIOCY/IGNORANCE (15) answered.

*I repeat you are a 100% science illiterate.
And you post NO source for your idiot claims. Why?
No real ones exist that aren't Christian apologetics/Kweationists.*
.









						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




`


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> Useless organs, even dangerous ones like Wisdom Teeth (from when we were herbivorous and lived in trees) can and have killed people.
> But for the advent of Modern dentistry the human population would be gradually purged of the majority who get them.
> The Coxxis/former tail also a useless remnant from when we lived in trees.
> 
> *That's NOT "intelligent," it's what you'd a expect from a continuing/common descent Pile/build-up of trial and error mutations you Moron.*
> 
> The rest is all useless CRAP about what others call Micro vs Macro evolution
> But it's really the same ongoing continued distancing that leads to other species.
> And the EVIDENCE for that is Overwhelming: fossil and otherwise.
> And btw WE are not special creation, we are still evolving as is all life.
> 
> Another kweationist klown.
> 
> `


Indeed   trail and error mutations. Mutations are smart and intelligent but DNA is random. LMAO  Show us an example of a mutated life that has been made complete and whole again.....adding back to the corrupted DNA.....demonstrate your TRAIL and ERROR, Oops! I (a mutation) made a mistake by trail, lets start all over again. Once a DNA is corrupted, its corrupted and incomplete, there is no TRAIL PERIOD.   You can't demonstrate that......DNA gains new information with mutation, it never gains information.....it becomes imperfect, not whole, not complete because there was a break in a link.

  I am still awaiting for you to present the LAW OF EVOLUTION.  Science works with FACTS..........if there are no facts present there can be no LAWS.   There is quite a bit of difference between APPLIED SCIENCE and THEORETICAL SCIENCE.  One is based upon facts and quantifiable potential........the other is nothing but a philosophy pretending to be SCIENCE, its pseudo in nature, it exists only between the ears of someone, the reason you can't show us the LAW OF EVOLUTION.......you have presented nothing but speculation, assumption, conjecture based upon observing that which exists today while projecting the reality that exists  today as a constant over the past eons void of having the empirical evidence to make those conjectures, assumptions, and speculations FACTS of SCIENCE.  There is no such animal as the Law of Evolution.

Do you comprehend the term "Rationalize"?   Can you spell REASONING?  Theoretical physics - Wikipedia

On the other hand "Experimental Physics" Present facts as determined by the scientific method of EXPERIMENTATION that produces empirical evidences that are reproducible and constant.  Again........show me the LAW OF EVOLUTION.

Pseudo: not genuine but presenting the appearance of.   Example:  Look at all your posts.........you pretend evolution is a fact but you simply can't produce the LAW that MAKES IT A FACT OF SCIENCE.  Text Book pseudo science.

Just as confirmed in the scriptures, "Professing to be wise.........THEY BECAME FOOLS".  -- Rom. 1:22


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nope.


We know there are no aliens.  The crop circle design on the small smooth rock makes it appear hokey.  What was interesting was the rock was magnetic and I think the show proved it was a rock and not something made to look like one.

"
In Search of Aliens​
S 1 E 4
The Roswell Rock​Aug 15, 2014 | 44m 8s | TV-PG | CC

A mysterious rock bearing a cryptic design was discovered in Roswell, New Mexico in 2004. Now coined “The Roswell Rock,” this piece of stone is unusually smooth and possesses unique magnetic properties. Even more intriguing is that the motif on the rock–a sequence of triangles and crescents–is an exact match to a crop circle found in England nearly two decades ago. Ancient Astronaut Theorist Giorgio Tsoukalos sets out to determine the origin of this intriguing stone. Through a series of experiments Tsoukalos unveils whether The Roswell Rock is merely a man-made fabrication or something much more. How could the precise design have been created without leaving evidence of altering the stone? Why does this small rock react to magnets? And most baffling of all–why does the design match a crop circle that appeared more than 4,000 miles away from the Nevada desert?"

Knock yourself out atheists lol








						Watch In Search of Aliens Season 1 Episode 4 | HISTORY Channel
					

A mysterious rock bearing a cryptic design was discovered in Roswell, New Mexico in 2004. Now coined "The Roswell Rock," this piece of stone is unusually smooth...




					www.history.com


----------



## Clyde 154

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Please read more slowly and try to understand ideas before commenting. This is the science section, not the Sunday revival.
> 
> I said DNA does nothing with purpose or intent. Any more so than does a water molecule.
> 
> Following?
> 
> Also not what I said. You either do not read well, or you are a dishonest troll who intentionally misrepresents people.
> 
> Go back, re-read, maybe attempt some comments that are both coherent and relevant to the comments to which you are responding. Or stick to the Rubber Room









Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you repeat something over and over it becomes a LAW of PHSICS? You have presented NO LAW OF EVOLUTION.   You present PSEUDO SCIENCE that exists only as assumption, speculation and conjecture....i.e, You present philosophy and pretend its applied science.   If this is the science section.  Show me the LAW that makes it applied science, that which can be quantified via potential or observed empirically while being reproducible and constant.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Indeed   trail and error mutations. Mutations are smart and intelligent but DNA is random. LMAO  Show us an example of a mutated life that has been made complete and whole again.....adding back to the corrupted DNA.....demonstrate your TRAIL and ERROR, Oops! I (a mutation) made a mistake by trail, lets start all over again. Once a DNA is corrupted, its corrupted and incomplete, there is no TRAIL PERIOD.   You can't demonstrate that......DNA gains new information with mutation, it never gains information.....it becomes imperfect, not whole, not complete because there was a break in a link.[/quopte]


LYING response.
Mutations are constant errors. Some may end up helping, many/most may not.
They are not "smart" and I never claimed so.
You Dishonest POS.




Clyde 154 said:


> * I am still awaiting for you to present the LAW OF EVOLUTION.  Science works with FACTS..........if there are no facts present there can be no LAWS.   There is quite a bit of difference between APPLIED SCIENCE and THEORETICAL SCIENCE. * One is based upon facts and quantifiable potential........the other is nothing but a philosophy pretending to be SCIENCE, its pseudo in nature, it exists only between the ears of someone, the reason you can't show us the LAW OF EVOLUTION.......you have presented nothing but speculation, assumption, conjecture based upon observing that which exists today while projecting the reality that exists  today as a constant over the past eons void of having the empirical evidence to make those conjectures, assumptions, and speculations FACTS of SCIENCE.  There is no such animal as the Law of Evolution.


I already explained it with a 100% Response from an impeccable source.
(BTW, do you even have ANY evidence of your or anyone else's god?)
Again:

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]
*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law,* which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
*So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.*

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
- -

And Evolution already is an APPLIED science.*
OOOOOOOOPS!
Google at all Brain-dead Bible boy?
No.
You are willfully Ignorant. Like a 12 IQ.

*Applications of Evolution* (!)


			https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution[/B]
		


Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, *is an area of science with Many Practical Applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.*[3]

Contents​
1. Wider biology
2. Artificial selection
3. Medicine
4. Computer science
5. References
- - - - -  - -- - - -


Wow what a BEATING You're getting you Lying Ignorant God Boy.
What a ******* beating.
Are you like Bond's fellow asylum inmate?
(Bond already lost several tonight and has moved on/deflected to Aliens/another conspiracy)

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> If you repeat something over and over it becomes a LAW of PHSICS?



Nobody who knew anything about science would say this or would think any scientist would ever say this.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> LYING response.
> Mutations are constant errors. Some may end up helping, many/most may not.
> They are not "smart" and I never claimed so.
> You Dishonest POS.
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained it with a 100% Response from an impeccable source.
> (BTW, do you even have ANY evidence of your or anyone else's god?)
> Again:
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> [.....]
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law,* which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> *So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.*
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
> - -
> 
> And Evolution already is an APPLIED science.*
> OOOOOOOOPS!
> Google at all Brain-dead Bible boy?
> No.
> You are willfully Ignorant. Like a 12 IQ.
> 
> *Applications of Evolution* (!)
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, *is an area of science with Many Practical Applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.*[3]
> 
> Contents​
> 1. Wider biology
> 2. Artificial selection
> 3. Medicine
> 4. Computer science
> 5. References
> - - - - -  - -- - - -
> 
> 
> Wow what a BEATING You're getting you Lying Ignorant God Boy.
> What a ******* beating.
> Are you like Bond's fellow asylum inmate?
> (Bond already lost several tonight and has moved on/deflected to Aliens/another conspiracy)
> 
> `


Evolution is a natural LIE.  It doesn't take much to beat you like chicken drummettes.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Evolution is a natural LIE.  It doesn't take much to beat you like chicken drummettes.


Such an angry, self-hating religious extremist.


----------



## surada

Freewill said:


> All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie.  Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?



Procreation is survival.


----------



## abu afak

> Clyde 154 said:
> Indeed  trail and error mutations. Mutations are smart and intelligent but DNA is random. LMAO Show us an example of a mutated life that has been made complete and whole again.....adding back to the corrupted DNA.....demonstrate your TRAIL and ERROR, Oops! I (a mutation) made a mistake by trail, lets start all over again. Once a DNA is corrupted, its corrupted and incomplete, there is no TRAIL PERIOD. You can't demonstrate that......DNA gains new information with mutation, it never gains information.....it becomes imperfect, not whole, not complete because there was a break in a link.[/quopte]


LYING response.
Mutations are constant errors. Some may end up helping, many/most may not.
They are not "smart" and I never claimed so. I said 'trial and error.' (and a 'pile' of them)
You Dishonest POS.




> Clyde 154 said:
> *I am still awaiting for you to present the LAW OF EVOLUTION. Science works with FACTS..........if there are no facts present there can be no LAWS. There is quite a bit of difference between APPLIED SCIENCE and THEORETICAL SCIENCE. *One is based upon facts and quantifiable potential........the other is nothing but a philosophy pretending to be SCIENCE, its pseudo in nature, it exists only between the ears of someone, the reason you can't show us the LAW OF EVOLUTION.......you have presented nothing but speculation, assumption, conjecture based upon observing that which exists today while projecting the reality that exists today as a constant over the past eons void of having the empirical evidence to make those conjectures, assumptions, and speculations FACTS of SCIENCE. There is no such animal as the Law of Evolution.


I already explained it with a 100% Response from an impeccable source.
(BTW, do you even have ANY evidence of your or anyone else's god?)
Again:

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]
*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law,* which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
*So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
- -*
-
*And Evolution already is an APPLIED science.*
OOOOOOOOPS!
Google at all Brain-dead Bible boy?
No.
You are willfully Ignorant. Like a 12 IQ.

*Applications of Evolution* (!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, *is an area of science with Many Practical Applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.*[3]

Contents​
1. Wider biology
2. Artificial selection
3. Medicine
4. Computer science
5. References
- - - - - - -- - - -


Wow what a BEATING You're getting you Lying Ignorant God Boy.
What a ******* beating.
Are you like Bond's fellow asylum inmate?
(Bond already lost several tonight and has moved on/deflected to Aliens/another conspiracy)

`


----------



## surada

Freewill said:


> Since your mind is closed you mock and say nothing.



You aren't thinking it thru.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Such an angry, self-hating religious extremist.


The easiest victory was to disprove long time and life from non-life.  Radioisotope dating does not match calendar year and its assumptions are unknown.  How else could C14 and soft tissue in fossils still remain after "billions" of years?  There has never been life from non-life.  Creationist Louis Pasteur disproved life from non-life with his swan neck experiment; He saved lives with germ theory.  Darwin was a weak scientist and his ideas fell from favor over time.  We also know that there are no anatomical vestiges; Only old people believe that.  You shouldn't get your science ideas from National Geographic -- 4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative – Return Of Kings.  It'll make one degenerate.

So what does Jimmy say about it?  You seem to follow him.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> The easiest victory was to disprove long time and life from non-life. * Radioisotope dating does not match calendar year and its assumptions are unknown.  How else could C14 and soft tissue in fossils still remain after "billions" of years?  *There has never been life from non-life.  Creationist Louis Pasteur disproved life from non-life with his swan neck experiment; He saved lives with germ theory.  Darwin was a weak scientist and his ideas fell from favor over time.  We also know that there are no anatomical vestiges; Only old people believe that.  You shouldn't get your science ideas from National Geographic -- 4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative – Return Of Kings.  It'll make one degenerate.
> 
> So what does Jimmy say about it?  You seem to follow him.


You DISHONEST SINNING MORON.
Already refuted.
*But you have no debate left so you LIE/SIN alot. You're going to Hell. (according to your own goofy take)
You LOST
Again,
C14 is NOT the only Radioisotope.*
Some go out many Millions of years.
*AGAIN:*






						Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Contents*​
*1 Fundamentals

1.1Radioactive decay
1.2Decay constant determination
1.3Accuracy of radiometric dating
1.4Closure temperature
1.5The age equation
*
*2 Modern dating methods

2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating metho
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods

2.10 Other methods
*
3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
3.2The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer


`

*James Bond is a raging LIAR/sinner who keeps DISHONESTLY ignoring and getting Beaten/GUTTED by facts.
He's a Disgrace to Christianity.
He's lost Scores of times in this thread alone.
Hundreds in the last few threads on this topic.*


*`*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The easiest victory was to disprove long time and life from non-life.  Radioisotope dating does not match calendar year and its assumptions are unknown.  How else could C14 and soft tissue in fossils still remain after "billions" of years?  There has never been life from non-life.  Creationist Louis Pasteur disproved life from non-life with his swan neck experiment; He saved lives with germ theory.  Darwin was a weak scientist and his ideas fell from favor over time.  We also know that there are no anatomical vestiges; Only old people believe that.  You shouldn't get your science ideas from National Geographic -- 4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative – Return Of Kings.  It'll make one degenerate.
> 
> So what does Jimmy say about it?  You seem to follow him.


"long time".

I suppose that's a technical term you learned at the Jimmy Swaggert Madrasah.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You DISHONEST SINNING MORON.
> Already refuted.
> *But you have no debate left so you LIE/SIN alot. You're going to Hell. (according to your own goofy take)
> You LOST
> Again,
> C14 is NOT the only Radioisotope.*
> Some go out many Millions of years.
> *AGAIN:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Contents*​
> *1 Fundamentals
> 
> 1.1Radioactive decay
> 1.2Decay constant determination
> 1.3Accuracy of radiometric dating
> 1.4Closure temperature
> 1.5The age equation
> *
> *2 Modern dating methods
> 
> 2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating metho
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 
> 2.10 Other methods
> *
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> 
> 
> `
> 
> *James Bond is a raging LIAR/sinner who keeps DISHONESTLY ignoring and getting Beaten/GUTTED by facts.
> He's a Disgrace to Christianity.
> He's lost Scores of times in this thread alone.
> Hundreds in the last few threads on this topic.*
> 
> 
> *`*


I keep winning because I tell the truth about science.  it's you who is the sinner, liar, and simpleton who trusts lies.  I must really get deep down to your soul since you continue to post and *highlight* me in S&T.  Furthermore, you don't know about the assumptions made of radiometric dating -- Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray - creation.com.

I googled  your user name as you said to and we find that you were murdered because of trying to murder the prophet, Muhammed.  It was a stab to the kidney that killed Abu Afak.  Ugghhh!  Prolonged kidney failure is not painful, but the way your namesake got it would be.  That said, I think the most painful would be seeing your perfect spiritual self being tossed in the Lake of Fire and watching your biggest enemy here (according to you) being blessed with The Rapture.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I keep winning because I tell the truth about science.  it's you who is the sinner, liar, and simpleton who trusts lies.  I must really get deep down to your soul since you continue to post and *highlight* me in S&T.  Furthermore, you don't know about the assumptions made of radiometric dating -- Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray - creation.com.
> 
> I googled  your user name as you said to and we find that you were murdered because of trying to murder the prophet, Muhammed.  It was a stab to the kidney that killed Abu Afak.  Ugghhh!  Prolonged kidney failure is not painful, but the way your namesake got it would be.  That said, I think the most painful would be seeing your perfect spiritual self being tossed in the Lake of Fire and watching your biggest enemy here (according to you) being blessed with The Rapture.


You've been defeated on EVERY Fact a dozen times.
You have nothing to say except the Big Lie "I'm winning" 100 times and post deflections like 'Ancient Alien' youtubes.
You've totally gone in the tank now that you realize/I've demonstrated your ideas//idiot fallacies are all wrong.

You're a posting criminal and charlatan.
*You're not "Jimmy Swaggert" (who has some morals/sanity)..
James Bond is the Evangelical Charles Manson... a truth-murdering Lunatic.*
`
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You've been defeated on EVERY Fact a dozen times.
> You have nothing to say except the Big Lie "I'm winning" 100 times and post deflections like 'Ancient Alien' youtubes.
> You've totally gone in the tank now that you realize/I've demonstrated your ideas//idiot fallacies are all wrong.
> 
> You're a posting criminal and charlatan.
> *You're not "Jimmy Swaggert" (who has some morals/sanity)..
> James Bond is the Evangelical Charles Manson... a truth-murdering Lunatic.*
> `
> `


I've won because of your intellectual weakness.  Your first sentence is way wrong as facts are those boring, needling, and troubling things that BOTH sides can use.  For example, I provided the greatest creation scientists and their accomplishments such as the scientific method, laws of thermodynamics, quantum theory of light, and more.  *You could not counter with any atheist scientists!*  If there was one, then it came from me and was _the guy nobody remembers_ who used radiometric dating to show old universe and Earth in the 1950s.  Before that, the atheist scientists thought of an infinite universe which turned out to be a fat lie.

So, what did the ATHEIST SCIENTISTS accomplish off the top of your head?  I've already won with Darwin and that social Drawinism led to eugenics, Nazism, Hitler, and the Holocaust.  Here's a list for you since you don't know -- The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists.  Anything observable as dark energy and dark matter doesn't count?  If you want to count invisibility, then I can say the arm of God stretches out the heavens like a curtain in the shape of a tent.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You're a posting criminal and charlatan.
> *You're not "Jimmy Swaggert" (who has some morals/sanity)..
> James Bond is the Evangelical Charles Manson... a truth-murdering Lunatic.*`


Let know if you get STABBING pains in the kidney area will you, abu afak?  Ouch.  It could mean your _absolute proof_ is near.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> "long time".
> 
> I suppose that's a technical term you learned at the Jimmy Swaggert Madrasah.


4 WAYS NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC IS FURTHERING A DEGENERATE LEFTIST NARRATIVE​Are you a degen... oops, subscriber?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I've won because of your intellectual weakness.  Your first sentence is way wrong as facts are those boring, needling, and troubling things that BOTH sides can use.  For example, I provided the greatest creation scientists and their accomplishments such as the scientific method, laws of thermodynamics, quantum theory of light, and more.  *You could not counter with any atheist scientists!*  If there was one, then it came from me and was _the guy nobody remembers_ who used radiometric dating to show old universe and Earth in the 1950s.  Before that, the atheist scientists thought of an infinite universe which turned out to be a fat lie.
> 
> So, what did the ATHEIST SCIENTISTS accomplish off the top of your head?  I've already won with Darwin and that social Drawinism led to eugenics, Nazism, Hitler, and the Holocaust.  Here's a list for you since you don't know -- The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists.  Anything observable as dark energy and dark matter doesn't count?  If you want to count invisibility, then I can say the arm of God stretches out the heavens like a curtain in the shape of a tent.



Your list of 25 atheists are not all well known in science. Here is a list off the top of my head of the top physicists of the last century. None of them are creationists. Some are deists and some are atheists. All quotes are from Wikipedia. However whether they are YEC or atheists means absolutely nothing. This is a science forum and they should be judged by their science. I have no idea why you take so much glee in promoting creationist scientists of well over 100 years ago.

*Albert Einstein*
_Relativity, Quantization of electromagnetic energy_
"He said he had sympathy for the impersonal pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza's philosophy.[175] He did not believe in a personal god who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve."

*Erwin Schrödinger*
_Quantum Mechanics_
"Schrödinger had a deep interest in philosophy, and was influenced by the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and Baruch Spinoza."

*Paul Dirac*
_Quantum electrodynamics_
"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality."

*Stephen Hawking*
_Black holes, etc._
"No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either."

*Peter Higgs*
_The Higgs Boson_
"Higgs is an atheist."

*Wolfgang Pauli*
_neutrino, beta decay, modern quantum mechanics_
"He is considered to have been a deist and a mystic."

*Richard Feynman*
_Quantum mechanics, path integral formulation_
"religion which has been in the past and still is, therefore, a source of moral code as well as inspiration to follow that code.”

*John Archibald Wheeler*
_quantum mechanics, general relativity_
"Wheeler and Hegner were founding members of the Unitarian Church of Princeton"

*Max Planck*
_Quantization of electromagnetic energy_
"... Planck's deism, which omitted all reference to established religions and had no more doctrinal content than Einstein's Judaism."

.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> 4 WAYS NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC IS FURTHERING A DEGENERATE LEFTIST NARRATIVE​Are you a degen... oops, subscriber?


Such an angry, self-hating religious extremist.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Your list of 25 atheists are not all well known in science. Here is a list off the top of my head of the top physicists of the last century. None of them are creationists. Some are deists and some are atheists. All quotes are from Wikipedia. However whether they are YEC or atheists means absolutely nothing. This is a science forum and they should be judged by their science. I have no idea why you take so much glee in promoting creationist scientists of well over 100 years ago.
> 
> *Albert Einstein*
> _Relativity, Quantization of electromagnetic energy_
> "He said he had sympathy for the impersonal pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza's philosophy.[175] He did not believe in a personal god who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve."
> 
> *Erwin Schrödinger*
> _Quantum Mechanics_
> "Schrödinger had a deep interest in philosophy, and was influenced by the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and Baruch Spinoza."
> 
> *Paul Dirac*
> _Quantum electrodynamics_
> "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality."
> 
> *Stephen Hawking*
> _Black holes, etc._
> "No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either."
> 
> *Peter Higgs*
> _The Higgs Boson_
> "Higgs is an atheist."
> 
> *Wolfgang Pauli*
> _neutrino, beta decay, modern quantum mechanics_
> "He is considered to have been a deist and a mystic."
> 
> *Richard Feynman*
> _Quantum mechanics, path integral formulation_
> "religion which has been in the past and still is, therefore, a source of moral code as well as inspiration to follow that code.”
> 
> *John Archibald Wheeler*
> _quantum mechanics, general relativity_
> "Wheeler and Hegner were founding members of the Unitarian Church of Princeton"
> 
> *Max Planck*
> _Quantization of electromagnetic energy_
> "... Planck's deism, which omitted all reference to established religions and had no more doctrinal content than Einstein's Judaism."
> 
> .


Max Planck is the Father of Quantum Theory and he Father of Modern Physics.  He believed in God -- Revelation (religion) - Conservapedia.    

Currently, the creation scientists are deliberately left out from submitting papers.  Thus, science is biased and we have two approaches to science.  My main point is the Bible states the truth was replaced with a lie and this is what happened.

Furthermore, the creationists can explain origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it and science and logic backs it up.  Your side does not know.  The Higgs Boson standard model is practically all they have shown.  The rest hasn't been shown or not observable.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Max Planck is the Father of Quantum Theory and he Father of Modern Physics.  He believed in God -- Revelation (religion) - Conservapedia.
> 
> Currently, the creation scientists are deliberately left out from submitting papers.  Thus, science is biased and we have two approaches to science.  My main point is the Bible states the truth was replaced with a lie and this is what happened.
> 
> Furthermore, the creationists can explain origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it and science and logic backs it up.  Your side does not know.  The Higgs Boson standard model is practically all they have shown.  The rest hasn't been shown or not observable.


Only proving You lie all day every day
Not all scientists are Atheists.
Some are sane secular Christians, Unlike you.
It's literalism that makes you ISIS-for-Jesus.

Of course Scientists ARE inordinately atheist/agnostic, as there is in INVERSE relationship between Religiosity and IQ.

"...A meta-analysis and an updated analysis by the same research group have found *a measurable negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity.*[4][5]​​




						Religiosity and intelligence - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				


​​OR:​​







						Why Are Religious People (Generally) Less Intelligent?
					

Understanding the negative relationship between IQ and religiosity




					www.psychologytoday.com
				


​​`​


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Max Planck is the Father of Quantum Theory and he Father of Modern Physics. He believed in God -- Revelation (religion) - Conservapedia.


He was not a creationist and he wasn't the father of modern physics. This is from Wikipedia.

_"... he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time."

"At the end of the 1920s Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli had worked out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it was rejected by Planck, and by Schrödinger, Laue, and Einstein as well. Planck expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own child—unnecessary. This was not to be the case, however."_


james bond said:


> Currently, the creation scientists are deliberately left out from submitting papers.


They can submit any paper anywhere. But it would immediately be rejected in all real science journals if it is based on the Bible. Creationists have their own journals. 



james bond said:


> Furthermore, the creationists can explain origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it and science and logic backs it up. Your side does not know. The Higgs Boson standard model is practically all they have shown. The rest hasn't been shown or not observable.


Nothing in the creationists ideas are observable. Science does not back up the opening chapter of the Bible which is unobservable. The creationist methodology is not science.

*The Scientific Method*:
Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.

*The Creationist Method*.
Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.

.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> He was not a creationist and he wasn't the father of modern physics. This is from Wikipedia.
> 
> _"... he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time."
> 
> "At the end of the 1920s Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli had worked out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it was rejected by Planck, and by Schrödinger, Laue, and Einstein as well. Planck expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own child—unnecessary. This was not to be the case, however."_
> 
> They can submit any paper anywhere. But it would immediately be rejected in all real science journals if it is based on the Bible. Creationists have their own journals.
> 
> 
> Nothing in the creationists ideas are observable. Science does not back up the opening chapter of the Bible which is unobservable. The creationist methodology is not science.
> 
> *The Scientific Method*:
> Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.
> 
> *The Creationist Method*.
> Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.
> 
> .


Such idiocy.  The scientific method was formed by a creation scientist.  What you describe as "Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't." is the atheist science method.  For example, WLC and I provided the KCA and there was no response.  No response to the Athropic Principle either and its parameters were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Today, the atheist scientists just ignore it.  It means the atheists and their scientists believe in lies.  I just gave you the proof and facts, but you'll ignore it because it isn't consistent with atheism and evolution.  You can't present any examples like I can.  What a loser you are.  LOSER, LOSER, LOSER.


----------



## james bond

If I was an atheist and didn't agree with evolution, then what do I have left?  I have no logical argument like KCA.  I don't have a history of atheist scientists and their accomplishments.  I would have to search the internet just to come up with atheist scientists who wrote more than papers and articles to become well known.  My atheist science would have NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE like that in the scientific method with experiments.  The famous Miller-Urey experiment to create life from non-life turned out amino acids, but not enough of them.  Others experiments such as those from volcanoes or H2S discharge produced amino acids, too, but no proteins.  Now, they want to go into space to further conduct these experiments as they now think life formed in space now lol.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> If I was an atheist and didn't agree with evolution, then what do I have left?


You could make up a new god like you did.

`


----------



## abu afak

Another little known but strong point for Evo, and it's on your body.
See the OP at least.
Seymour Flops


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Another little known but strong point for Evo, and it's on your body.
> See the OP at least.
> Seymour Flops


I don't refute evolution.  

I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species.  It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.

Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.

The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.

You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.'  But you would not convince a creationist.  Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age."  If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false. 

This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it:  If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.

Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:  

1)  vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.  

2)  it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.  

*Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.   *









						What Does the Appendix Do?
					






					www.healthline.com
				




*One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.*









						The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
					

WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.




					www.webmd.com
				




*If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.

Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.*





__





						What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought… | BBC Science Focus Magazine
					

If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.



					www.sciencefocus.com
				




If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't refute evolution.
> 
> I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species.  It strikes me as *a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.*


"apparently designed"
How so?
Implies you are indeed a Creationist as design needs a designER.
Ahhh, stealth creationism is at the bottom of most 'scientific ' objection.




Seymour Flops said:


> Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
> 
> The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.


I just showed you they are the same in another thread.
Simple substitution after the 1987 USSC ruling.
and No, vestigal/useless/even dangerous parts ae not designer work.




Seymour Flops said:


> You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.'  But you would not convince a creationist.  *Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age."  If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.*
> 
> This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it:  If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.


Sorry that's laughable

also see #3 in "15 Answers..."



Seymour Flops said:


> Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
> 
> 1)  vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 2)  it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
> 
> *Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Appendix Do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.healthline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
> 
> 
> WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.webmd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
> 
> Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought… | BBC Science Focus Magazine
> 
> 
> If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencefocus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.


As it turns out some of the parts have some lesser use, but, ie, Wisdom teeth would have been killing people before modern dentistry an anti-biotics.
The Coxxys also useless.

*So let's be clear, you ARE creationist if you think things "appear designed."
Intelligent design needs a designer/god.*

You are also suffering a logical fallacy that what looks designed/coherent to you... is actually all that was left of 10,000x more failed mutations (you call designs) that survived best. Random trial and error.


Lots off keyboard issues 13.9" Yoga. done for now.
`


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't refute evolution.
> 
> I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species.  It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.
> 
> Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
> 
> The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.
> 
> You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.'  But you would not convince a creationist.  Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age."  If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.
> 
> This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it:  If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.
> 
> Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
> 
> 1)  vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 2)  it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
> 
> *Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Appendix Do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.healthline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
> 
> 
> WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.webmd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
> 
> Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought… | BBC Science Focus Magazine
> 
> 
> If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencefocus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.



Which ''designer gods'' are responsible for the appendix?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't refute evolution.
> 
> I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species.  It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.
> 
> Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
> 
> The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.
> 
> You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.'  But you would not convince a creationist.  Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age."  If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.
> 
> This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it:  If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.
> 
> Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
> 
> 1)  vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 2)  it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
> 
> *Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Appendix Do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.healthline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
> 
> 
> WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.webmd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
> 
> Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought… | BBC Science Focus Magazine
> 
> 
> If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencefocus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.



You claim you don't refute evolution but then go on to introduce ''designer gods'' as somehow being required to somehow explain diversity of life on the planet.   

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote _Origin of Species_ that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> You claim you don't refute evolution but then go on to introduce ''designer gods'' as somehow being required to somehow explain diversity of life on the planet.


Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote.  Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said.  I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.


Hollie said:


> Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).
> 
> In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote _Origin of Species_ that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.


Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record.  It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.

None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth.  That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote.  Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said.  I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.
> 
> Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record.  It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.
> 
> None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth.  That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.


You keep repeating the Big Lie.
You have not demonstrated/evidenced this "apparent design" in any way.
You just keep repeating it like "Stolen Election."

Further, a designer/god-guided progression is Religion/creationism, not science.

*You did not answer any of my posts refuting you, including that ID was indeed replacement creationism.*
Game over.

Yet you persist with and ignore that you were refuted.
You are a religion-based objector, a Religionist/godist/Creationist, and behave exactly like one.
A predictable show for someone living with faith instead of fact.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> don't refute evolution.
> 
> I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer


Then yes, you do "refute" the theory of evolution. Literally all of it, top to bottom. 

So let's get that clear immediately.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote.  Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said.  I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.
> 
> Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record.  It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.
> 
> None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth.  That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.



What apparent design? I don't see any indication of design by any supposed designer. If someone was going to refute some alleged apparent (supernatural) design, there would first be the need for a rational case to be made for such a designer.   Why don't you provide some evidence of design? Evidence of design implies something in the natural world is, how shall we say, unnatural. Can you identify an unnatural event, object or circumstance that would point to a supernatural designer?


----------



## Ringtone

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't refute evolution.
> 
> I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species.  It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.
> 
> Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
> 
> The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.
> 
> You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.'  But you would not convince a creationist.  Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age."  If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.
> 
> This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it:  If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.
> 
> Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
> 
> 1)  vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 2)  it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
> 
> *Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Appendix Do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.healthline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
> 
> 
> WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.webmd.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
> 
> Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought… | BBC Science Focus Magazine
> 
> 
> If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencefocus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.


But creationists do _not_ necessarily assume a young Earth, and the Bible doesn't actually depict a young Earth.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then yes, you do "refute" the theory of evolution. Literally all of it, top to bottom.
> 
> So let's get that clear immediately.


No,  you are wrong immediately.

People talked about evolution long before Darwin.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Ringtone said:


> But creationists do _not_ necessarily assume a young Earth, and the Bible doesn't actually depict a young Earth.


Not all of them.  But many do.  Or at least they used to.

I haven't debated a Creationist in a long time, since it was usually fruitless. When I did do that, the idea that they Earth was young, but with an appearance of age seemed pretty common.

Maybe creationism has evolved, no pun intended.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> What apparent design? I don't see any indication of design by any supposed designer. If someone was going to refute some alleged apparent (supernatural) design, there would first be the need for a rational case to be made for such a designer.   Why don't you provide some evidence of design? Evidence of design implies something in the natural world is, how shall we say, unnatural. Can you identify an unnatural event, object or circumstance that would point to a supernatural designer?


The incredible intricacy of the "simplest" of organisms on Earth lends itself much more to having been designed, than having randomly occurred though random genetic mutations.

Don't take my word for it, Hollie.  Listen to Richard Dawkins, strong advocate of Darwinian evolution and opponent of creationism:

*Atheist Richard Dawkins is hopping mad at the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dawkins accuses the filmmakers of “lying for Jesus” because they make it seem that he believes in intelligent design and space aliens.

Dawkins is an outspoken critic of intelligent design (ID). In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins defined biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”*









						Is the “Science” of Richard Dawkins Science Fiction?
					

Atheist Richard Dawkins is hopping mad at the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dawkins accuses the filmmakers of "lying for Jesus" because they make it seem that he believes in intelligent…




					www.discovery.org


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> The incredible intricacy of the "simplest" of organisms on Earth lends itself much more to having been designed, than having randomly occurred though random genetic mutations.


''... because I say so'' is not an argument.

We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer

What the supernaturalists don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> ''... because I say so'' is not an argument.
> 
> We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer
> 
> This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever


I guess you are smarter than Richard Dawkins, then?

Here's some more quotes from the same article:

*By ruling out design, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”*

So, Dawkins' purpose in denying intelligent design is to support his religious faith.

Even so, he had to admit that there is "apparent" design, just as I say.

*Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed — and that the design might be detectable.*

What more do you need?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> I guess you are smarter than Richard Dawkins, then?
> 
> Here's some more quotes from the same article:
> 
> *By ruling out design, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”*
> 
> So, Dawkins' purpose in denying intelligent design is to support his religious faith.
> 
> Even so, he had to admit that there is "apparent" design, just as I say.
> 
> *Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed — and that the design might be detectable.*
> 
> What more do you need?


Dawkins [seemingly] against the whole weight of Biology/Sci community is nothing and also constitutes another of my seminal Debunking threads:




__





						The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'
					

Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik. Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining  Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Quote-Mining
as you are doing now is a creationcYst's mainstay. Taking out of context quotes.
You owe full contexted quotes which is one reason You don't like them links. Full context and source.

You'll note we see this temporal disingenuity/Dishonesty regularly also referred to in my Gould signature below.
Gould too has been quote-MINED questioning/disagreeing with Evo even tho though he is a 100% Darwinist.

You really want to see the bulk of Dawkins quoteS on evo?

You haven't answered anything I said/refuted you on. (ID, etc)
You have not stated your precise position on Evo.
Pretty sleezy.
Your whole effort is sleezy, not straightforward, and dodging stating your position or answering my rebuttals.

My estimate now is that it is something like 'god guided Evo' which is Not Evo, or what you did say before, 'god' makes things look old to fool people.
Nonsensical and obfuscatory as that is.

You can't debate me and quit trying.
You lost.
Losing with Hollie too.

`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Seymour Flops said:


> Not all of them.  But many do.  Or at least they used to.
> 
> I haven't debated a Creationist in a long time, since it was usually fruitless. When I did do that, the idea that they Earth was young, but with an appearance of age seemed pretty common.
> 
> Maybe creationism has evolved, no pun intended.


Very few people believe the earth is young


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> ''... because I say so'' is not an argument.
> 
> We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer
> 
> What the supernaturalists don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness


What science doesnt have is ANY proof a mammal every evolved into two or more entirely different species.


----------



## Seymour Flops

RetiredGySgt said:


> Very few people believe the earth is young


Have the creationists moved away from that position?


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Dawkins [seemingly] against the whole weight of Biology/Sci community is nothing and also constitutes another of my seminal Debunking threads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'
> 
> 
> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik. Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining  Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote-Mining
> as you are doing now is a creationcYst's mainstay. Taking out of context quotes.
> You owe full contexted quotes which is one reason You don't like them links. Full context and source.
> 
> You'll note we see this temporal disingenuity/Dishonesty regularly also referred to in my Gould signature below.
> Gould too has been quote-MINED questioning/disagreeing with Evo even tho though he is a 100% Darwinist.
> 
> You really want to see the bulk of Dawkins quoteS on evo?
> 
> You haven't answered anything I said/refuted you on. (ID, etc)
> You have not stated your precise position on Evo.
> Pretty sleezy.
> Your whole effort is sleezy, not straightforward, and dodging stating your position or answering my rebuttals.
> 
> My estimate now is that it is something like 'god guided Evo' which is Not Evo, or what you did say before, 'god' makes things look old to fool people.
> Nonsensical and obfuscatory as that is.
> 
> You can't debate me and quit trying.
> You lost.
> Losing with Hollie too.
> 
> `


Is Hollie your sock?  That's what it usually turns out to be when one poster tells me that another poster is "winning."

I didn't tell Dawkins to start on about Space Aliens being the intelligent designer, he thought of that one all on his own.  Or maybe someone else thought of it, but it was not me.

Sure, you could attempt to distract from those quotes that I quoted with a flood of other words from Dawkins about other topics.   But when it comes to the apparent design of life on Earth, he takes the same stance that I do:  It's apparent.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> I guess you are smarter than Richard Dawkins, then?
> 
> Here's some more quotes from the same article:
> 
> *By ruling out design, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”*
> 
> So, Dawkins' purpose in denying intelligent design is to support his religious faith.
> 
> Even so, he had to admit that there is "apparent" design, just as I say.
> 
> *Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed — and that the design might be detectable.*
> 
> What more do you need?


I need more than praying at the altar of Richard Dawkins.

So-called ''intelligent design'' is just a label for Christian fundamentalism.

Natural selection is widely studied and carries undeniable support in science. What can you tell us about supernaturalism as a field of study? Which gods are front-runners for the title of Head Designer in Charge?


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> What science doesnt have is ANY proof a mammal every evolved into two or more entirely different species.


The Gods have played a cruel joke on you.







__





						Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
					





					www.talkorigins.org


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> I need more than praying at the altar of Richard Dawkins.


I think you misunderstand.  Richard Dawkins is not a creationist, nor an intelligent design proponent.  He hates both of those ideas.  He's written books attempting to debunk intelligent design. 

But even he had to admit that life on Earth has an apparent design.  His explanation was space aliens, not a supernatural being or whatever, but it is still intelligent design.


Hollie said:


> So-called ''intelligent design'' is just a label for Christian fundamentalism.


Wrong.


Hollie said:


> Natural selection is widely studied and carries undeniable support in science. What can you tell us about supernaturalism as a field of study? Which gods are front-runners for the title of Head Designer in Charge?


Natural selection is widely studied in an attempt to _find _support for it.  Other than, "it sounds like it could be right," there really is no evidence that Darwinian "natural selection" is what led to the abundance and variety of life on Earth.  It is speculation, just as intelligent design is. 

The difference is that I am perfectly content to have you believe in Darwinian evolution.  The fact that Darwinians are so insistent that no other ideas be allowed telegraphs a pretty extreme weakness in their case.

I never mentioned any God or gods.  You keep bringing that up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Seymour Flops said:


> Have the creationists moved away from that position?


very few ever believed it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> The Gods have played a cruel joke on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org


That doesnt say anything about one species evolving into 2 different species.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> I think you misunderstand.  Richard Dawkins is not a creationist, nor an intelligent design proponent.  He hates both of those ideas.  He's written books attempting to debunk intelligent design.
> 
> But even he had to admit that life on Earth has an apparent design.  His explanation was space aliens, not a supernatural being or whatever, but it is still intelligent design.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Natural selection is widely studied in an attempt to _find _support for it.  Other than, "it sounds like it could be right," there really is no evidence that Darwinian "natural selection" is what led to the abundance and variety of life on Earth.  It is speculation, just as intelligent design is.
> 
> The difference is that I am perfectly content to have you believe in Darwinian evolution.  The fact that Darwinians are so insistent that no other ideas be allowed telegraphs a pretty extreme weakness in their case.
> 
> I never mentioned any God or gods.  You keep bringing that up.


At some point, I would have thought that you would make a case for your designer gods. It’s fine to have ideas about supernatural gods magically creating all of existence but so far, you haven’t identified which of the gods have done that, nor have you offered any evidence of those gods. While your fascination with Dawkins seems a bit misplaced, I suppose he has a following as god-like for some.


Accepting the facts of biological evolution is a rational position. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural events. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> That doesnt say anything about one species evolving into 2 different species.



Actually, it does.

"Species-to-species transition":
This is a set of _numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another_. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals



Are you ready for part 2?



			Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> At some point, I would have thought that you would make a case for your designer gods.


Why would you have thought that, given that I never mentioned any "designer gods?"


Hollie said:


> It’s fine to have ideas about supernatural gods magically creating all of existence but so far, you haven’t identified which of the gods have done that, nor have you offered any evidence of those gods. While your fascination with Dawkins seems a bit misplaced, I suppose he has a following as god-like for some.


"God, god, god, god!"  You seem obsessed with God. What's that about?


Hollie said:


> Accepting the facts of biological evolution is a rational position. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural events. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them


Is your only argument to nag people to "accept the facts?"  Doesn't seem very effective; does it fool the rubes?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Why would you have thought that, given that I never mentioned any "designer gods?"
> 
> "God, god, god, god!"  You seem obsessed with God. What's that about?
> 
> Is your only argument to nag people to "accept the facts?"  Doesn't seem very effective, does it fool the rubes?



If naturally occurring processes are not sufficient to produce the diversity of life we see on the planet and you propose that supernatural designers are the cause, what can you offer to convince us these supernatural designers are the cause?

I understand those nagging facts are a bothersome chore to deal with but some of us live within a reality based worldview where old men dressed in long, flowing white robes and fat, naked babies playing harps while floating in the clouds is not all that convincing an argument relative to the natural world.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> If naturally occurring processes are not sufficient to produce the diversity of life we see on the planet and you propose that supernatural designers are the cause, what can you offer to convince us these supernatural designers are the cause?


Well, at least you're asking a reasonable question.  I don't propose that "supernatural" designers are the cause.  That the apparent design implies a designer is self-evident.  But it is rebuttable, by anyone who has another explanation for the apparent design.  It would not be Darwinian evolution, though, that theory is too weakly supported and has nothing to say about how life began in the first place, not counting Dawkins' Space Alien Theory.

Recognizing the apparent design, does not make me responsible to describe the designer.  If astronauts ever land on a distant planet and find the ruins of an apparent civilization, they don't have to describe the designers, and neither do people on Earth who see pictures and videos of the extra-terrestrial archeology.

Not knowing what the designer, or designers were like does not mean that it is crazy to think that design implies a designer.


Hollie said:


> I understand those nagging facts are a bothersome chore to deal with but some of us live within a reality based worldview where old men dressed in long, flowing white robes and fat, naked babies playing harps while floating in the clouds is not all that convincing an argument relative to the natural world.


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the old man in the sky, and the fat, naked babies idea either. 

In fact, I would love to hear a completely naturalistic, and reasonable explanation for how life on Earth began.   Science should always first look to natural explanations, not super-natural ones.  But, for a "scientist" to  Just say that Darwin is all we have given that we insist on no designer is nowhere near sufficient.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> Actually, it does.
> 
> "Species-to-species transition":
> This is a set of _numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another_. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ready for part 2?
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A


Again it does not say anything about one species changing into 2 different species.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Well, at least you're asking a reasonable question.  I don't propose that "supernatural" designers are the cause.  That the apparent design implies a designer is self-evident.  But it is rebuttable, by anyone who has another explanation for the apparent design.  It would not be Darwinian evolution, though, that theory is too weakly supported and has nothing to say about how life began in the first place, not counting Dawkins' Space Alien Theory.
> 
> Recognizing the apparent design, does not make me responsible to describe the designer.  If astronauts ever land on a distant planet and find the ruins of an apparent civilization, they don't have to describe the designers, and neither do people on Earth who see pictures and videos of the extra-terrestrial archeology.
> 
> Not knowing what the designer, or designers were like does not mean that it is crazy to think that design implies a designer.
> 
> Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the old man in the sky, and the fat, naked babies idea either.
> 
> In fact, I would love to hear a completely naturalistic, and reasonable explanation for how life on Earth began.   Science should always first look to natural explanations, not super-natural ones.  But, for a "scientist" to  Just say that Darwin is all we have given that we insist on no designer is nowhere near sufficient.



You use the term ''apparent design'' but offer nothing to support what that means. Creationists typically appeal to feelings and such subjective measures when making appeals to their proposed supernatural designers, ie. their gods.

Another attribute common among creationists is a profound misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. The theory has nothing to do with the beginning of life. The TOE addresses changes in populations over time. Common descent with modification is among the most basic, best supported elements of biological evolution. 

If evidence for life on the planet is not naturally occurring then some supernatural forces were seemingly involved. What are those supernatural forces? Another common attribute of creationists is complete rejection of biological evolution in favor of their supernatural designers but they offer nothing to support who those supernatural designers are or how those supernatural designers managed their designs.


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again it does not say anything about one species changing into 2 different species.



Actually, it does.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Is Hollie your sock?  That's what it usually turns out to be when one poster tells me that another poster is "winning."
> 
> I didn't tell Dawkins to start on about Space Aliens being the intelligent designer, he thought of that one all on his own.  Or maybe someone else thought of it, but it was not me.
> 
> Sure, you could attempt to distract from those quotes that I quoted with a flood of other words from Dawkins about other topics.   But when it comes to the apparent design of life on Earth, he takes the same stance that I do:  It's apparent.


If you really thought Hollie was my sock you wouldn't have stopped responding to me and only replying (if not answering) her.

*Because the Fact is you LOST to me and went mum
once I smashed your ID and it's twin 'Apparent design'*, along with 'appeal to authority.

in fact, after my Sciam fact/theory citation you said:


			
				Seymour Flops said:
			
		

> *Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.
> 
> What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.*


Which was of course wrong too, and I had to explain that fallacy to you.

But you could NOT justify in your own words 'apparent design' so quote-mined (another fallacy) Evolution believer/'authority' Dawkins. What YOU would have called 'Appeal to Authority' but for my explaining the term!

And you still have not shown anything is "apparently" or "intelligently" "Designed." And the two are the same and bogus Creationism clones.

Beyond that you have not really explained or responded to my probing of your idea of how life spread on earth. But I guess it's "apparent design" with an unspecified parent/god even though you believe in one you are not naming to maintain some sci 'credibility.'



			
				me said:
			
		

> My turn.
> Are you a creationist?
> An anti-evolutionist on 'scientific grounds?' (at least it seems)
> Of course, at least about half of creationist try the science Route and it does not go well.
> *If you don't believe species can morph into another you believe they were put out here roughly as is: Creationism.*
> We have an ever increasing fossil record with more 'tweeners' that only Evo would and does predict before they are found.
> Predictability is also weighty.
> Or do you believe in another natural explanation? On what evidence?



Some believe in "god guided evolution" which of course is not evolution (but extended or intermittent creationism) as real evolution is life 'responding' through a multitude of mutations (trial and error) to the ever changing conditions. (and after Billions of things died off what's left looks 'intelligent' for current conditions I suppose), but only after the fact. Had a meteor not hit earth, we might still be in a world of dinosaurs instead of small mammals spreading/being able to mutate into various related larger species.

`


----------



## Woodznutz

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​


In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> No,  you are wrong immediately.
> 
> People talked about evolution long before Darwin.


Irrelevant.

If you deny evolution as the origin of species, you reject the theory of evolution.

No way out of it. You must admit it. You don't get to have it both ways.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> That doesnt say anything about one species evolving into 2 different species.





RetiredGySgt said:


> Again it does not say anything about one species changing into 2 different species.


Didn't even look at it, did you?

Yes it does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution.


Well that's a laughable lie.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's a laughable lie.



Everything that you believe evolved had to be created.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution.


In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Everything that you believe evolved had to be created.


Or not. Whales were not created. They evolved from earlier species of mammals.


----------



## 52ndStreet

LittleNipper said:


> Breeding is *man*ipulation. However, a plant is a plant, a moth is a moth, a fruit fly remains a fruit fly, and bacteria stays bacteria. Each kind is unique and bound by God.


Evolutionist always say we evolved from apes! ? Then why are the apes still here? God created man in his image. Just like man can now clone animals,  practice in vitro fertilization. I hear white people were grafted by a scientist called Jacob in Africa many thousands of years ago. Google his name.
Evolution is  all theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

52ndStreet said:


> Evolutionist always say we evolved from apes! ? Then why are the apes still here?


This is the kind of question a child asks when hearing about evolution for the first time.

Why are you even commenting on evolution? You clearly know less than nothing about it.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is the kind of question a child asks when hearing about evolution for the first time.
> 
> Why are you even commenting on evolution? You clearly know less than nothing about it.


Well I am not a child , but I know that animals were being grafted and made in ancient Egypt hundreds of thousands of years ago. I also know that Black people did not evolve from apes , by way of mitochondria DNA studies who proved that we all have the same mitochodria DNA from a Black women in Kenya that lived 150,000 years ago. Maybe whites evolved from apes or Orangutans. She was a human woman, not an Ape.


----------



## Hollie

52ndStreet said:


> Well I am not a child , but I know that animals were being grafted and made in ancient Egypt hundreds of thousands of years ago. I also know that Black people did not evolve from apes , by way of mitochondria DNA studies who proved that we all have the same mitochodria DNA from a Black women in Kenya that lived 150,000 years ago. Maybe whites evolved from apes or Orangutans. She was a human woman, not an Ape.


''I know that animals were being grafted and made in ancient Egypt hundreds of thousands of years ago.''

You read a lot of supermarket tabloids, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

52ndStreet said:


> Well I am not a child


That's right you aren't. So you have NO excuse for being this abjectly ignorant  of this topic. Nor should anyone  feel compelled to spoonfeed an adult any of the material. Go learn something.  




52ndStreet said:


> but I know that animals were being grafted and made in ancient Egypt hundreds of thousands of years ago.


No you don't. This is the science section, take this bizarre nonsense to another section.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Irrelevant.


It is relevant that the idea of evolution by far pre-dated Darwinian theory about evolution.  Because it means that people believed evolution was a possible or likely explanation for the existence of species long before the Darwinian idea of speciation via natural selection.   Therefore, it is possible to accept one without accepting the other.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you deny evolution as the origin of species, you reject the theory of evolution.
> 
> No way out of it. You must admit it. You don't get to have it both ways.


Hopefully, the above cleared up that erroneous thinking on your part.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> You use the term ''apparent design'' but offer nothing to support what that means.


It means the same thing that Richard Dawkins meant when he spoke about it.


Hollie said:


> Creationists typically appeal to feelings and such subjective measures when making appeals to their proposed supernatural designers, ie. their gods.
> 
> Another attribute common among creationists is a profound misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. The theory has nothing to do with the beginning of life. The TOE addresses changes in populations over time. Common descent with modification is among the most basic, best supported elements of biological evolution.


Oh?

Then what theory does address the beginning of life?


Hollie said:


> If evidence for life on the planet is not naturally occurring then some supernatural forces were seemingly involved. What are those supernatural forces? Another common attribute of creationists is complete rejection of biological evolution in favor of their supernatural designers but they offer nothing to support who those supernatural designers are or how those supernatural designers managed their designs.


Yep.  That's what creationists do alright.

Why tell me that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> It is relevant that the idea of evolution by far pre-dated Darwinian theory about evolution.


Which is you changing the topic. So, irrelevant.

You deny evolutionas the origin of species.

Therefore, you deny the entire theory of evolution. Top to bottom.

So you can admit this, or you can lie despite already having shown everyone proof that you are lying. Which would be quite a spectacle.

Those are your choices. Be honest, or lie despite every single person knowing you are lying.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which is you changing the topic. So, irrelevant.
> 
> You deny evolutionas the origin of species.
> 
> Therefore, you deny the entire theory of evolution. Top to bottom.
> 
> So you can admit this, or you can lie despite already having shown everyone proof that you are lying. Which would be quite a spectacle.
> 
> Those are your choices. Be honest, or lie despite every single person knowing you are lying.


Be specific now and cite for us how life came to be?


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> If you really thought Hollie was my sock you wouldn't have stopped responding to me and only replying (if not answering) her.


Why?  If I were offended by sock puppetry, I would stroke out every time I logged onto a political forum.


abu afak said:


> *Because the Fact is you LOST to me and went mum
> once I smashed your ID and it's twin 'Apparent design'*, along with 'appeal to authority.


If you had beaten me so soundly, you would simply walk away with your victory.


abu afak said:


> in fact, after my Sciam fact/theory citation you said:
> 
> Which was of course wrong too, and I had to explain that fallacy to you.
> 
> But you could NOT justify in your own words 'apparent design' so quote-mined (another fallacy) Evolution believer/'authority' Dawkins. What YOU would have called 'Appeal to Authority' but for my explaining the term!
> 
> And you still have not shown anything is "apparently" or "intelligently" "Designed." And the two are the same and bogus Creationism clones.


So you are claiming that the worlds foremost opponent of creationism and intelligent is wrong when he talks about apparent design?


abu afak said:


> Beyond that you have not really explained or responded to my probing of your idea of how life spread on earth. But I guess it's "apparent design" with an unspecified parent/god even though you believe in one you are not naming to maintain some sci 'credibility.'


You did not "probe" my idea of how life spread on Earth.  You copied and pasted some works that you certainly did not read yourself.


abu afak said:


> Some believe in "god guided evolution" which of course is not evolution (but extended or intermittent creationism) as real evolution is life 'responding' through a multitude of mutations (trial and error) to the ever changing conditions. (and after Billions of things died off what's left looks 'intelligent' for current conditions I suppose), but only after the fact. Had a meteor not hit earth, we might still be in a world of dinosaurs instead of small mammals spreading/being able to mutate into various related larger species.
> 
> `


Who sent the meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?

Was that another co-inkie-dink?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be specific now and cite for us how life came to be?


Different topic. We both believe in abiogensis. You just believe it was a magic trick by a sky daddy, and I don't.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is the kind of question a child asks when hearing about evolution for the first time.
> 
> Why are you even commenting on evolution? You clearly know less than nothing about it.



Have you gotten your opposable thumbs yet?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JustAGuy1 said:


> Have you gotten your opposable thumbs yet?


Of course, I am an ape just as you are.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course, I am an ape just as you are.



Naaa, I am a created child of God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JustAGuy1 said:


> Naaa, I am a created child of God.


Maybe yes, maybe no, but you are still an ape that evolved from a different apes.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Different topic. We both believe in abiogensis. You just believe it was a magic trick by a sky daddy, and I don't.


Life can come from non-life?

Can you give some examples?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> Life can come from non-life?


Yes, just as a star can come from a "not star".

We call this: star formation.

Example: planet Earth. Once there was no life on Earth, then there was. 

We don't disagree on any of this. Where we diverge is you attributing abiogenesis to the magic trick of a sky daddy.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Why?  If I were offended by sock puppetry, I would stroke out every time I logged onto a political forum.


It was another ridiculous claim by you and false.




Seymour Flops said:


> If you had beaten me so soundly, you would simply walk away with your victory.


Because you keep trying to foist your BS on others even though I have refuted cleanly.




Seymour Flops said:


> So you are claiming that the worlds foremost opponent of creationism and intelligent is wrong when he talks about apparent design?


Yes, and I showed how with the twin ID. I was really over then, you had to ignore it.
Unrebutted/untouched by you.
One also has to consider the other 99.9% of Dawkins' work, not quote-mine him.




Seymour Flops said:


> You did not "probe" my idea of how life spread on Earth.  You copied and pasted some works that you certainly did not read yourself.


I answered everything in my own words and showed an understanding of the topic you'll Never have throughout.




Seymour Flops said:


> *Who sent the meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?* *Was that another co-inkie-dink?*



Now you're really outing yourself boy.
YES!
Oh yeah, 'god sent the meteor.'
And what is that?
*An 'intelligent'/'designed' way to work?
Wiping out more than half of 'his creation' because it was imperfect/a Mistake.
Punishing the dinosaurs and much other life for their sins!! LOL
Billions of years wasted, billions of species extinct Instead of more coherent True 'design' to get to where we are now?*
You just set your @ss on fire again.

Go back to Creation-con or AIG.
None of them could debate me either.
Seymour Flops again.
`


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> It means the same thing that Richard Dawkins meant when he spoke about it.
> 
> Oh?
> 
> Then what theory does address the beginning of life?
> 
> Yep.  That's what creationists do alright.
> 
> Why tell me that?


You have quite the hero worship of Dawkins. 

Abiogenesis is the theory that addresses the beginning of life. The science community does not understand the precise details of the origin of life even though we know with certainty the process occurred.  Contrast the attitude of people working in that field to the supernatural design advocates. The Designer'istas are completely uninterested in testing any ideas about who the designers are or how, in detail, the designers magically made life. People working in the fields of biological sciences propose theories and test models. Obviously, the models are incomplete. 

Creationers, on the other hand, test nothing, do no research and in the case of creation ministries, have a ''statement if faith'' where they explicitly disavow any facts or evidence that contradicts the Bible.

Virtually without exception, creationers are fundamentalist Christians. There does not exist a more strident, anti-science group outside of Christianity.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Life can come from non-life?
> 
> Can you give some examples?


God/A god can pop up from nowhere?
You only like magic for your fabrications?
Can you give me some other examples? No.
But I can give You Hundreds of other examples of man creating/fabricating gods though.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> God/A god can pop up from nowhere?
> You only like magic for your fabrications?
> Can you give me some other examples? No.
> But I can give You Hundreds of other examples of man creating/fabricating gods though.
> `


That's the Rigged game the religious Nutters play. Nothing can come from nothing, except for the things that they say can. Nothing can be infinite, except for the things they say can be infinite.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Life can come from non-life?
> 
> Can you give some examples?


Life on this planet is one plausible example. If the occurrence of life did not develop by naturally occurring means, what supernatural or godly means were involved?

Can you give some examples?


----------



## Notaradical60

Vikrant said:


> Humans are just one of the many primates that exist today. We are not similar to primates; we are in fact primates.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...
> 
> Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> History Travel Arts Science People Places Smithsonian


Hey! Hey! We're the monkeys! People say we Monkey around !


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Notaradical60 said:


> Hey! Hey! We're the monkeys! People say we Monkey around !


Ha

Apes though, really


----------



## Notaradical60

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ha
> 
> Apes though, really


Whatev! I love Bananas, and Chimps eat other Monkeys. Evolution for sure!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Notaradical60 said:


> Whatev! I love Bananas, and Chimps eat other Monkeys. Evolution for sure!


Ever heard of Soylent Green?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

the religious are crazy but claim life came from rocks is sane?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> the religious are crazy but claim life came from rocks is sane?


Wow, you apparently know as much about abiogenesis theory as you do about evolution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wow, you apparently know as much about abiogenesis theory as you do about evolution.


LOL so explain where the materials to create life came from


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL so explain where the materials to create life came from


From fusion inside of stars. Pretty sure that's about the 10th time you have been told this.


----------



## Notaradical60

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ever heard of Soylent Green?


Yup ! that's why they made Covid.Come this way and get your shot! Now please move into the Observation area!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hey look, everyone! It's a 'water rock'!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> From fusion inside of stars. Pretty sure that's about the 10th time you have been told this.


lol so a ball of fire can create life that is just as nuts as a rock


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, just as a star can come from a "not star".
> 
> We call this: star formation.
> 
> Example: planet Earth. Once there was no life on Earth, then there was.


What caused that to happen?


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We don't disagree on any of this. Where we diverge is you attributing abiogenesis to the magic trick of a sky daddy.


You don't disagree with your false representation that I believe in abiogenesis and that I attribute it to the magic trick of a sky daddy.

You do disagree with my assertion that abiogenesis is impossible under present or past conditions on Earth.

Feel free to present any evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Notaradical60 said:


> Yup ! that's why they made Covid.Come this way and get your shot! Now please move into the Observation area!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> lol so a ball of fire can create life that is just as nuts as a rock


Stop being so goddamn stupid.

You asked where the materials were formed. You got the correct answer.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> You have quite the hero worship of Dawkins.
> 
> Abiogenesis is the theory that addresses the beginning of life. The science community does not understand the precise details of the origin of life even though we know with certainty the process occurred.  Contrast the attitude of people working in that field to the supernatural design advocates. The Designer'istas are completely uninterested in testing any ideas about who the designers are or how, in detail, the designers magically made life. People working in the fields of biological sciences propose theories and test models. Obviously, the models are incomplete.


Pfffft!  Obviously the models are incomplete.  But we know with certainty that they happened?


Hollie said:


> Creationers, on the other hand, test nothing, do no research and in the case of creation ministries, have a ''statement if faith'' where they explicitly disavow any facts or evidence that contradicts the Bible.


*YAWN* at your weak attempt to force me to defend the creationist stance.


Hollie said:


> Virtually without exception, creationers are fundamentalist Christians. There does not exist a more strident, anti-science group outside of Christianity.


The groups that says "don't question the science," is the most strident anti-science groups there is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> What caused that to happen?


Selection. 


Seymour Flops said:


> You do disagree with my assertion that abiogenesis is impossible under present or past conditions on Earth.


No, you believe it is not only possible but absolutely certain that a sky daddy did it with magic. 

So we both agree it is possible. I just don't need magic.


----------



## 52ndStreet

52ndStreet said:


> Well I am not a child , but I know that animals were being grafted and made in ancient Egypt hundreds of thousands of years ago. I also know that Black people did not evolve from apes , by way of mitochondria DNA studies who proved that we all have the same mitochondrial DNA from a Black women in Kenya that lived 150,000 years ago. Maybe whites evolved from apes or Orangutans. She was a human woman, not an Ape.


So then why do scientist say that every human on the Earth today have the same mitochondrial DNA as this black woman that they trace back to Kenya East Africa from over 150,000 years and not that of some Ape or chipanzee?. Shouldn't the Apes and monkeys have evolved with us after all these millions of years. Shouldn't they have the same mitochondrial DNA? Who and what is this missing ancestor. How come science has never identified this primate?.What caused this split.? Your theory of evolution, and natural selection is nothing but theories.Europeans may have evolved from apes, or primates. Black people were created By God.
The creator.  White people were also created in Africa by Jacob. But the African sun was to strong for their skin. So they eventually migrated to Europe, where the Suns rays were not as strong. Do some
research Fort Fun Indiana. The White race was a grafted race that was breed by Jacob. Google his name if yo don't believe me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

52ndStreet said:


> So then why do scientist say that every human on the Earth today have the same mitochondrial DNA as this black woman that they trace back to Kenya East Africa from over 150,000 years and not that of some Ape or chipanzee?.


Because that is a measure of ...

...Listen up this time....

The MOST RECENT COMMON FEMALE ANCESTOR

The most recent common female ancestor of ANY SPECIES will always be a member of that species.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because that is a measure of ...
> 
> ...Listen up this time....
> 
> The MOST RECENT COMMON FEMALE ANCESTOR
> 
> The most recent common female ancestor of ANY SPECIES will always be a member of that species.


I think you should watch the Documentary about this black women that lived over 150,000 years ago that we all share mitochondrial DNA with. It was done by National Geographic. Google it and learn something from it. She wasn't an ape.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

52ndStreet said:


> So then why do scientist say that every human on the Earth today have the same mitochondrial DNA as this black woman that they trace back to Kenya East Africa from over 150,000 years and not that of some Ape or chipanzee?.


Because that is a measure of ...

...Listen up this time....

The MOST RECENT COMMON FEMALE


52ndStreet said:


> I think you should watch the Documentary about this black women that lived over 150,000 years ago. It was done by National Geographic. Google it and learn something from it. She wasn't an ape.


Yes, I literally just introduced to you the concept of the most recent common female ancestor and how she had to be a human.

Do you or you not understand why this is? Think on it.

(But technically, she was an ape, and so are you. So am i. But...baby steps)


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> Virtually without exception, creationers are fundamentalist Christians. There does not exist a more strident, anti-science group outside of Christianity.


I am an exception.  I believe in science, but not evolution _as it is commonly believed._


----------



## Unkotare

Yeah, brokeloser is an additional worthless asshole that should have been gone long ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> I am an exception. I believe in science, but not evolution _as it is commonly believed._


So, belief not based on evidence. As all the evidence supports "what is commonly believed.". All of it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Freewill said:


> Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not. But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does.


Not true at all. People who understand evolution know abiogenesis is a different topic.

But, what is common to both is the concept of "selection".


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, belief not based on evidence. As all the evidence supports "what is commonly believed.". All of it.


Most people (common believers) haven't a clue.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

52ndStreet said:


> Shouldn't the Apes and monkeys have evolved with us after all these millions of years.


Exactly like us? Why would they? They evolved away from our most common ancestor, as did humans. They evolved differently because they filled a different niche.

Again, kid's stuff,my man.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not true at all. People who understand evolution know abiogenesis is a different topic.
> 
> But, what is common to both is the concept of "selection".


How many people do you think actually "understand evolution"?


----------



## 52ndStreet

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because that is a measure of ...
> 
> ...Listen up this time....
> 
> The MOST RECENT COMMON FEMALE
> 
> Yes, I literally just introduced to you the concept of the most recent common female ancestor and how she had to be a human.
> 
> Do you or you not understand why this is? Think on it.
> 
> (But technically, she was an ape, and so are you. So am i. But...baby steps)


We were all created by God, we did not evolve from Apes , that are still in the Jungle and many are vegitarians.  You are entitled to your beliefs. I never accepted the theory of evolution. Or natural selection.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Most people (common believers) haven't a clue.


So... Evolutionary Biologists...

i.e., Biologists....

...do they have a clue?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

52ndStreet said:


> We were all created, we did not evolve from Apes , that are still in the Jungle and many are vegitarians.


Yes, fine, believe what you want.

But don't say dumb and wrong  stuff about evolution in a science section and think you get a pass, because "BLEEF".


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So... Evolutionary Biologists...
> 
> i.e., Biologists....
> 
> ...do they have a clue?


They are the true believers. 

These arguments never end but they are fun. In the end we live by our beliefs and our knowledge. Whatever floats yer boat .


----------



## Unkotare

52ndStreet said:


> Well I am not a child , but I know that animals were being grafted and made in ancient Egypt hundreds of thousands of years ago. I also know that Black people did not evolve from apes , by way of mitochondria DNA studies who proved that we all have the same mitochodria DNA from a Black women in Kenya that lived 150,000 years ago. Maybe whites evolved from apes or Orangutans. She was a human woman, not an Ape.


You are a hilarious fool.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Exactly like us? Why would they? They evolved away from our most common ancestor, as did humans. They evolved differently because they filled a different niche.
> 
> Again, kid's stuff,my man.


Purchase a Bible and read it. Stop reading books by Charles Darwin. Dr. Robert Leakey said that the first Man and woman came from Africa, after his research in the Oldavi Gourge in Tanzania. Millions of years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> They are the true believers.


So, was that a yes or a no?

I will assume you are saying no.

So Evolutionary Biologists don't have a clue.

But you do.

Thats....special. You're special.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

52ndStreet said:


> Purchase a Bible and read it.


For science? Wow, what a terrible idea. Children, plug your ears.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Unkotare said:


> You are a hilarious fool.


And you are a Mongrel loving idiot, miscegnator.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, was that a yes or a no?
> 
> I will assume you are saying no.
> 
> So Evolutionary Biologists don't have a clue.
> 
> But you do.
> 
> Thats....special. You're special.


I said most people don't have a clue even if they say they believe it. Evolutionary biologists are the true believers. Many who profess belief in creation don't really believe it although there are true believers as well.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> I said most people don't have a clue even if they say they believe it. Evolutionary biologists are the true believers.


So you are saying they have a clue, or not?

Yes or no will do


----------



## Unkotare

52ndStreet said:


> And you are a Mongrel loving idiot, miscegnator [sic].


Still ruled by your primitive fears, coward? Wave bye-bye to the world as it moves further and further away from you, fool.


----------



## abu afak

52ndStreet said:


> So then why do scientist say that every human on the Earth today have the same mitochondrial DNA as this black woman that they trace back to Kenya East Africa from over 150,000 years and not that of some Ape or chipanzee?. Shouldn't the Apes and monkeys have evolved with us after all these millions of years. Shouldn't they have the same mitochondrial DNA? Who and what is this missing ancestor. How come science has never identified this primate?.What caused this split.? Your theory of evolution, and natural selection is nothing but theories.Europeans may have evolved from apes, or primates. Black people were created By God.
> The creator.  White people were also created in Africa by Jacob. But the African sun was to strong for their skin. So they eventually migrated to Europe, where the Suns rays were not as strong. Do some
> research Fort Fun Indiana. The White race was a grafted race that was breed by Jacob. Google his name if yo don't believe me.


We are 98+% similar to Chimpanzees (Bonobos)  in DNA as we share a a common Proto-Ape ancestors
Andy we split 5 or 10 million years ago into different 'families:' Humans into 'Homo' which includes current 'sapiens' and Lucy, but there were plenty of others in our Genus Homo and are a few million yeas older.

`


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So you are saying they have a clue, or not?
> 
> Yes or no will do


They believe they have a clue, yes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> They believe they have a clue, yes.


Pretty weaselly for the science section.

So, you say they don't.

But you do.

Ooooooookay!


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Pfffft!  Obviously the models are incomplete.  But we know with certainty that they happened?
> 
> *YAWN* at your weak attempt to force me to defend the creationist stance.
> 
> The groups that says "don't question the science," is the most strident anti-science groups there is.


We know with certainty abiogenesis occurred. Life on the planet is proof of that.

It was either a naturally occurring process or It was a supernatural event…. or maybe space aliens.

Give us something to consider for life on the planet being a result of Lord Shiva. Shirley, you must have something to support the notion that, “the gawds did it”.,


----------



## Unkotare

52ndStreet said:


> Purchase a Bible and read it. Stop reading books by Charles Darwin. Dr. Robert Leakey said that the first Man and woman came from Africa, after his research in the Oldavi Gourge in Tanzania. Millions of years ago.


 
You believe in Dr. Yakub, don't you?


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Pretty weaselly for the science section.
> 
> So, you say they don't.
> 
> But you do.
> 
> Ooooooookay!


  I said they do have a clue, or believe they do. It takes a lot of faith to believe the TOE.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> I am an exception.  I believe in science, but not evolution _as it is commonly believed._


“Evilution” without a unionized consortium of gods doing magic is just not possible.

I learned that at the Harun Yahya website, before he went to jail.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> I said they do have a clue, or believe they do. It takes a lot of faith to believe the TOE.


Hmm, no, it takes none. That's the entire point. 

All the evidence supports it.

You have zero evidence to the contrary.

Let's be clear.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> I said they do have a clue, or believe they do. It takes a lot of faith to believe the TOE.


No. It doesn’t take faith at all. Now, believing dead people come back to life or men live to be 900 years old, well, that takes a lot of fear and superstition.


----------



## abu afak

52ndStreet said:


> *So then why do scientist say that every human on the Earth today have the same mitochondrial DNA as this black woman that they trace back to Kenya East Africa from over 150,000 years and not that of some Ape or chipanzee?.* Shouldn't the Apes and monkeys have evolved with us after all these millions of years. Shouldn't they have the same mitochondrial DNA? Who and what is this missing ancestor. How come science has never identified this primate?.What caused this split.? Your theory of evolution, and natural selection is nothing but theories.Europeans may have evolved from apes, or primates. Black people were created By God.
> The creator.  White people were also created in Africa by Jacob. But the African sun was to strong for their skin. So they eventually migrated to Europe, where the Suns rays were not as strong. Do some
> research Fort Fun Indiana. The White race was a grafted race that was breed by Jacob. Google his name if yo don't believe me.


And who was her mother? Father?
We share a common ancestor with Apes and we split into Genus Homo over time.
There are plenty of human-like beings before Lucy and 2-10x the age you would call 'man' and not ape.
Lucy is not the mother of any Neanderthals (for just one) who were NOT apes either.
Most Euros have around 2% Neanderthal DNA.

LOOK!


			neanderthals - Google Search
		


`


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, no, it takes none. That's the entire point.
> 
> All the evidence supports it.
> 
> You have zero evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Let's be clear.


The evidence for creation is the presence of stuff. Had to come from somewhere.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> No. It doesn’t take faith at all. Now, believing dead people come back to life or men live to be 900 years old, well, that takes a lot of fear and superstition.


Or faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> The evidence for creation is the presence of stuff. Had to come from somewhere.


Sorry, that doesn't speak to evolution at all. You are flailing.


----------



## Woodznutz

abu afak said:


> And who was her mother? Father?
> We share a common ancestor with Apes and we split into Genus Homo over time.
> There are plenty of human-like beings before Lucy and 2-10x the age you would call 'man' and not ape.
> Lucy is not the mother of any Neanderthals (for just one) who were NOT apes either.
> Most Euros have around 2% Neanderthal DNA.
> 
> LOOK!
> 
> 
> neanderthals - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> `


Critters that share absolutely no evolutionary past are all made of the same basic stuff. Kinda like potatoes and oranges.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Critters that share absolutely no evolutionary past are all made of the same basic stuff. Kinda like potatoes and oranges.


Um, potatoes and oranges share an evolutionary past.

You don't really know anything  about this topic at all, do ya?


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry, that doesn't speak to evolution at all. You are flailing.


Not so. Without regard to evolution, where did everything come from. Doesn't science and the bible agree that everything is made out of stuff that can't be detected?


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Um, potatoes and oranges share an evolutionary past.
> 
> You don't really know anything  about this topic at all, do ya?


What is their shared evolutionary past?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Not so. Without regard to evolution, where did everything come from.


You just said without regard to evolution....? 

Maybe the universe was created. That doesn't conflict with evolution


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> What is their shared evolutionary past?


This is where you go look up something for yourself.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Selection.
> 
> No, you believe it is not only possible but absolutely certain that a sky daddy did it with magic.


Ok, so this is what you do?

You make up arguments for other people and then ridicule them instead of refuting them with logic?

Come on, man!

Can't you at least make up an argument that you can refute with logic?


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So we both agree it is possible. I just don't need magic.


What do you need, then?

Absent "magic," what explanation do you have for abiogenesis?


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because that is a measure of ...
> 
> ...Listen up this time....
> 
> The MOST RECENT COMMON FEMALE
> 
> Yes, I literally just introduced to you the concept of the most recent common female ancestor and how she had to be a human.
> 
> Do you or you not understand why this is? Think on it.
> 
> (But technically, she was an ape, and so are you. So am i. But...baby steps)


Well, of course the most recent common ancestor had to be human.

That's kind of a "duh!" isn't it?


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> We know with certainty abiogenesis occurred. Life on the planet is proof of that.
> 
> It was either a naturally occurring process or It was a supernatural event…. or maybe space aliens.
> 
> Give us something to consider for life on the planet being a result of Lord Shiva. Shirley, you must have something to support the notion that, “the gawds did it”.,


Oooh . . .

Once you admit the possibility of the supernatural, it takes the wind out of your rhetorical twists and turns to explain life absent the supernatural doesn't it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> What do you need, then?


Just selection and physical laws.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> Oooh . . .
> 
> Once you admit the possibility of the supernatural, it takes the wind out of your rhetorical twists and turns to explain life absent the supernatural doesn't it?


You don't seem to get how this double edged sword works:

Once YOU insist upon magic, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion of evidence. You have literally foregone the concept of evidence and have reduced yourself to nothing but a dimestore shaman making supernatural claims .

You can never claim to have evidence for your magical claims or against anything  else.

That's what magic is.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just selection and physical laws.


What physical laws?  Just give the three most important.

I think you are trying to slip this debate away from abiogenesis, which you announced that you have faith in, to evolution.

Or how do you think selection brings about abiogensis?


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You don't seem to get how this double edged sword works:
> 
> Once YOU insist upon magic, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion of evidence. You have literally foregone the concept of evidence and have reduced yourself to nothing but a dimestore shaman making supernatural claims .
> 
> You can never claim to have evidence for your magical claims or against anything  else.
> 
> That's what magic is.


Good thing that I haven't insisted on magic then.

But feel free to make up other people's arguments to debate against.

It's known as the straw man fallacy, so I hope you weren't thinking taking out a patent on that method.

BTW, why are you answering for Hollie again?  Forget to switch accounts?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> What physical laws? Just give the three most important.


All of them. A silly question on your part.




Seymour Flops said:


> I think you are trying to slip this debate away from abiogenesis, which you announced that you have faith in, to evolution.


Oops, made the same mistake again. You believe in the fact of  abiogenesis and have faith that it was a magic trick by a sky daddy. 

I have no faith nor need of any faith to suggest it was a deterministic, physical process. I have every observation and every shred of evidence ever collected about anything at all to support such a notion.

If you keep making this same error, I will just keep pointing it out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> Good thing that I haven't insisted on magic then.


Oh yes you do. I am not playing this game with you.

You think your magical beliefs are "special" and shouldn't go on the shelf with all other magical nonsense.

That is your handicap, not mine.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Oooh . . .
> 
> Once you admit the possibility of the supernatural, it takes the wind out of your rhetorical twists and turns to explain life absent the supernatural doesn't it?



Feel free to believe in magic and supernaturalism as an answer to anything. Would you care to offer a single event in human history that demonstrably establishes a supernatural (unnatural) event, one that can be directly attributed to any one of the gods?


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Or faith.


I don't know anyone who has ''faith'' in science. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it *can not* claim evidence. That's because faith is devoid of evidence. I don't need faith to reach conclusions. I can use supported data not reliant on magic and supernaturalism


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh yes you do. I am not playing this game with you.
> 
> You think your magical beliefs are "special" and shouldn't go on the shelf with all other magical nonsense.
> 
> That is your handicap, not mine.





Hollie said:


> Feel free to believe in magic and supernaturalism as an answer to anything. Would you care to offer a single event in human history that demonstrably establishes a supernatural (unnatural) event, one that can be directly attributed to any one of the gods?


Ok, you "two."  I don't know why you feel you need two accounts to repeat yourself(es) over and over, while never actually responding to what I actually said.

But I do know that you don't need me for that, since you make up your own "opposing" arguments to debate.

Have fun!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Feel free to believe in magic and supernaturalism as an answer to anything. Would you care to offer a single event in human history that demonstrably establishes a supernatural (unnatural) event, one that can be directly attributed to any one of the gods?


Magic has nothing to do with supernaturalism so you're wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong.  You haven't been paying attention as I provided 7 days of creation, the global flood, creation scientists being the best scientists in history, plate tectonics, fountains of the deep, and more.

Here's another view of the Bible being explained by science .


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Ok, you "two."  I don't know why you feel you need two accounts to repeat yourself(es) over and over, while never actually responding to what I actually said.
> 
> But I do know that you don't need me for that, since you make up your own "opposing" arguments to debate.
> 
> Have fun!


I don't see how that addresses any requirement for supernaturalism to be a part of the natural world.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> I don't know anyone who has ''faith'' in science. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it *can not* claim evidence. That's because faith is devoid of evidence. I don't need faith to reach conclusions. I can use supported data not reliant on magic and supernaturalism


Billions have 'faith' in science, that science will save us. Billions also have faith in God, that God will save us. I have more faith in God than science.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I don't see how that addresses any requirement for supernaturalism to be a part of the natural world.


God does not need us, but we need Him and His salvation.  The Bible tells us He is the origin of everything, but that we were sidetracked by Satan's tempting the first humans into sin.  It changed the world and universe and thus we need His salvation.  Just look at the atheists and unforgiven being sidetracked by evolution or evilution today.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> Ok, you "two."  I don't know why you feel you need two accounts to repeat yourself(es) over and over, while never actually responding to what I actually said.
> 
> But I do know that you don't need me for that, since you make up your own "opposing" arguments to debate.
> 
> Have fun!


I responded directly to what you said, as anyone can see for themselves. Your "poor me" act isn't going to fly.

Furthermore, you have made no arguments and presented no evidence to me. What detailed  response do you expect to such vapid rhetoric? It deserves nothing in response but "nuh-uh". So really, you have received more detailed responses than your rhetoric merits.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Billions have 'faith' in science, that science will save us. Billions also have faith in God, that God will save us. I have more faith in God than science.


No. People TRUST science due to having mountains of good evidence that shows thry should. That is not faith. That is a safe bet. That is an evidence-based determination. IE, the opposite of faith.

Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.

Not ever. So you can stop trying.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.


Such a hypocrite.  You're using circular reasoning.

"
Declaring Useful Organs to Be Useless Can Be Dangerous​
Once an organ is considered to be useless, it may be ignored by most scientists,  or even worse, surgically removed by physicians as a useless evolutionary leftover.  The oft repeated claim that the human appendix is useless is a case in point.  The evolutionist Alfred Romer in his book _The Vertebrate Body_ said of  the human appendix: “Its major importance would appear to be financial support  of the surgical profession.”6 We can only wonder how many normal appendices  have been removed by surgeons since Darwin first claimed them to be a useless  vestige. Even more frightening would be the surgical removal of a “useless”  parathyroid or pituitary gland.

The Definition of Vestigial Organs Has Been Changed​
As the list of “functionless” organs has grown smaller and smaller with advancing  knowledge, the definition of vestigial organs has been modified to include those  whose functions are claimed to have “changed” to serve different functions.  But such a definition removes the burden of proof that vestigial organs are  a vestige of evolution. Thus, the evolutionist might concede that the human  coccyx (“tail bone”) does indeed serve an important function in anchoring the  pelvic diaphragm—but still insist, without evidence, that it was once used by  our ancestors as a tail.


Circular Reasoning​


> The most conspicuous logical flaw in the use of vestigial organs as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning.



*The most conspicuous logical flaw in the use of vestigial organs as evidence  for evolution is circular reasoning. Evolutionists first declare vestigial organs  to be a result of evolution, and then they turn around and argue that their  existence is evidence for evolution. This kind of argument would hardly stand  up in a court of law.*"


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Billions have 'faith' in science, that science will save us. Billions also have faith in God, that God will save us. I have more faith in God than science.



I think you misapplied the definitions that separate faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. Those pressing a religious agenda usually argue that we have faith in things. That's not accurate.

Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, Belief in Gods for example. Whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I suggest to you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor misdiagnoses you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No. People TRUST science due to having mountains of good evidence that shows thry should. That is not faith. That is a safe bet. That is an evidence-based determination. IE, the opposite of faith.
> 
> Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.
> 
> Not ever. So you can stop trying.


There is no scientific evidence on how life started.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No. People TRUST science due to having mountains of good evidence that shows thry should. That is not faith. That is a safe bet. That is an evidence-based determination. IE, the opposite of faith.
> 
> Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.
> 
> Not ever. So you can stop trying.


 The great value of religion as opposed to science in regard to our well-being is that God requires us to repent of our self-destructive ways. Science does not.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> I think you misapplied the definitions that separate faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. Those pressing a religious agenda usually argue that we have faith in things. That's not accurate.
> 
> Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, Belief in Gods for example. Whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I suggest to you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor misdiagnoses you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.
> 
> With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you


Faith exercised becomes trust.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.


Faith in God is 'top shelf' stuff.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Faith exercised becomes trust.


No, it's not. I have trust in the words and actions of my friends and family because I have a personal history of behavior that builds such trust.

Tell us about how faith in any of the various gods is built on your personal history with them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> No, it's not. I have trust in the words and actions of my friends and family because I have a personal history of behavior that builds such trust.
> 
> Tell us about how faith in any of the various gods is built on your personal history with them.


LOL of course we have a PERSONAL history with our God


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> No, it's not. I have trust in the words and actions of my friends and family because I have a personal history of behavior that builds such trust.
> 
> Tell us about how faith in any of the various gods is built on your personal history with them.


God, through his writers, has shown us (me) a way of life that is happy, healthy, and prosperous. Those ways are the 'works' of faith mentioned by James.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is no scientific evidence on how life started.


Sure there is some. We know about when it happened, and what about what conditions were present on our Planet at the time. We can therefore constrain time and temperature and other environmental factors.

We also know which elements and chemicals that comprise life. So, we have constraints on the building blocks as well.

Another constraint: it happened in a liquid environment .( So you can toss out the silly "life from rocks" creationist talking point. )

So, we have a good basis from which to start, based on evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Faith in God is 'top shelf' stuff.


But not the same shelf as evidence based determination.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Faith exercised becomes trust.


False. Trust is based on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. A semantic difference that is actually important  here,to delineate two non overlapping Concepts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> The great value of religion as opposed to science in regard to our well-being is that God requires us to repent of our self-destructive ways. Science does not.


Says you.  If it makes you happy, then I am happy for you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sure there is some. We know about when it happened, and what about what conditions were present on our Planet at the time. We can therefore constrain time and temperature and other environmental factors.
> 
> We also know which elements and chemicals that comprise life. So, we have constraints on the building blocks as well.
> 
> Another constrant: it happened in a liquid environment .( So you can toss out the silly "life from rocks" creationist talking point. )
> 
> So, we have a good basis from which to start, based on evidence.


And yet no actual ability to recreate it or have a reasonable explanation of how it occurred.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet no actual ability to recreate it or have a reasonable explanation of how it occurred.


We have reasonable explanations. You need to pay more attention.

As for recreation: so what? We also can't make a star or a volcano in a lab. Yet we know stars and volcanoes do indeed form in the universe. That's another silly creationist talking point that you can toss out.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Such a hypocrite.  You're using circular reasoning.
> 
> "
> Declaring Useful Organs to Be Useless Can Be Dangerous​
> Once an organ is considered to be useless, it may be ignored by most scientists,  or even worse, surgically removed by physicians as a useless evolutionary leftover.  The oft repeated claim that the human appendix is useless is a case in point.  The evolutionist Alfred Romer in his book _The Vertebrate Body_ said of  the human appendix: “Its major importance would appear to be financial support  of the surgical profession.”6 We can only wonder how many normal appendices  have been removed by surgeons since Darwin first claimed them to be a useless  vestige. Even more frightening would be the surgical removal of a “useless”  parathyroid or pituitary gland.
> 
> The Definition of Vestigial Organs Has Been Changed​
> As the list of “functionless” organs has grown smaller and smaller with advancing  knowledge, the definition of vestigial organs has been modified to include those  whose functions are claimed to have “changed” to serve different functions.  But such a definition removes the burden of proof that vestigial organs are  a vestige of evolution. Thus, the evolutionist might concede that the human  coccyx (“tail bone”) does indeed serve an important function in anchoring the  pelvic diaphragm—but still insist, without evidence, that it was once used by  our ancestors as a tail.
> 
> 
> Circular Reasoning​
> 
> 
> *The most conspicuous logical flaw in the use of vestigial organs as evidence  for evolution is circular reasoning. Evolutionists first declare vestigial organs  to be a result of evolution, and then they turn around and argue that their  existence is evidence for evolution. This kind of argument would hardly stand  up in a court of law.*"


*You Lying POS.
Bible/god/Bible/god IS Circular reasoning.
(for the 1000th time)*
YOU LOST.. again.
It's Over.
Your answer is NOT a reply to what you posted/post Regularly: PROSELYTIZE.

You are also an Illiterate.
*My reasoning was not "circular,'" however you may "disagree" you showed no circularity.
You Blithering fool.

Now you also PLAGIARIZE/HIDE (LOL) AnswersInGenesis (steal their organs)*








						Vestigial Organs—Evidence for Evolution?
					

Vestigial organs have long been one of the classic arguments used as evidence for evolution.




					answersingenesis.org
				




`


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL of course we have a PERSONAL history with our God


Your PERSONAL history with your gods is quite different than the PERSONAL histories other have (and have had), with their gods. 

With all these gods competing for believers, you might want to interview a bunch of them to find the ones most anxious for your worship and adoration.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> God, through his writers, has shown us (me) a way of life that is happy, healthy, and prosperous. Those ways are the 'works' of faith mentioned by James.



Are you aware that none of the writers of the Bible (presuming those are the writers you're referring to), ever spoke to, were interviewed by, or received revelations by any of the Christian gods?

Are you aware that most of the supposed authors of the Bible are unknown?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> Are you aware that none of the writers of the Bible (presuming those are the writers you're referring to), ever spoke to, were interviewed by, or received revelations by any of the Christian gods?
> 
> Are you aware that most of the supposed authors of the Bible are unknown?


Are you aware we believe God inspired each writer to write what he wrote?


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> False. Trust is based on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. A semantic difference that is actually important  here,to delineate two non overlapping Concepts.


God wants us to have both faith and trust. "Faith" is also the "body of beliefs and doctrines" of the church. The proscriptions found in the ten commandments are such.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> God wants us to have both faith and trust. "Faith" is also the "body of beliefs and doctrines" of the church. The proscriptions found in the ten commandments are such.


Okay.

I know this probably wasn't your meaning, but: does this have anything  to do with why you reject evolution?


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you aware we believe God inspired each writer to write what he wrote?


That's nice you believe that. Not so nice that there is no reason to accept it as true. You have only hearsay that John, Paul, George or Ringo authored anything. It’s just a fact that Paul never met god jr.; Jesus, and didn’t pen anything until long after his death. 

There is this disturbing behavior among those who have no real interest in facts or the truth.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> That's nice you believe that. Not so nice that there is no reason to accept it as true. You have only hearsay that John, Paul, George or Ringo authored anything. It’s just a fact that Paul never met god jr.; Jesus, and didn’t pen anything until long after his death.
> 
> There is this disturbing behavior among those who have no real interest in facts or the truth.


I understand you only have faith in things you think are proven but guess what that isnt faith, if it is proven there is no faith involved, Of course you do have faith in the unproven evolution of a mammal creating 2 or more species from one source.


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> I understand you only have faith in things you think are proven but guess what that isnt faith, if it is proven there is no faith involved, Of course you do have faith in the unproven evolution of a mammal creating 2 or more species from one source.


I understand you don't have faith, you have indoctrination. You have a belief system that is common for your familial, geographic area. Had you been born and raised on a different part of the planet, you would have inherited the belief system and the geographically correct gods who are the rulers of the belief system common to that location. When the believers subjective belief system remains biased towards a predisposed conclusion (i.e., that faith in the particular gods associated with their geographic location goes unquestioned), one cannot ever view the issue in a nonpartisan way. Evidence really is meaningless to this paradigm because claims to the gods nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole for believers in the gods commonly associated with their socio-cultural geography.


 I also understand how threatened believers feel when the clear evidence of speciation, (the proven evolution of a mammal creating 2 or more species from one source) is presented to them. They deny the evidence because it threatens their beliefs.


----------



## Seymour Flops

No organ is vestigial, if all life on Earth is the result of random processes.  "Vestigial" means no longer having it's function.

Without input from some form of intelligence, there is no function, because function requires intent.  Intent requires intelligence.

The function of water running downhill is not to turn a waterwheel that generates electricity.  It may well do that, but designing a wheel to harness the power of running water requires intelligent input.

Maybe - maybe - whatever intelligence designed life on Earth, also placed many strategic streams to be available when humans discovered water power.  There seems an abundance of raw materials available awaiting for intelligent uses to be made of it.

But we know for sure that a simple machine such as a block and tackle does not occur without intelligent design.  If we are honest, we know that life on Earth is far more complicated than a block and tackle, and therefore even less likely to have come about by random events.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> I understand you don't have faith, you have indoctrination. You have a belief system that is common for your familial, geographic area. Had you been born and raised on a different part of the planet, you would have inherited the belief system and the geographically correct gods who are the rulers of the belief system common to that location. When the believers subjective belief system remains biased towards a predisposed conclusion (i.e., that faith in the particular gods associated with their geographic location goes unquestioned), one cannot ever view the issue in a nonpartisan way. Evidence really is meaningless to this paradigm because claims to the gods nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole for believers in the gods commonly associated with their socio-cultural geography.
> 
> 
> I also understand how threatened believers feel when the clear evidence of speciation, (the proven evolution of a mammal creating 2 or more species from one source) is presented to them. They deny the evidence because it threatens their beliefs.


You have not nor has anyone else proven the claim. As for predisposed I am a Mormon hardly what I was brought up to believe. Unlike you godless fools I prayed and God answered my prayers.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> No organ is vestigial, if all life on Earth is the result of random processes.  "Vestigial" means no longer having it's function.


Evolution, which you previous called the most rational explanation, works by mutation and all life forms are constantly evolving. No creature is in some final or 'perfect' form. We are not designed and ergo are not totally separate from our ancestors and always on our way to better evolving to our environments. That's why we have vestiges and strong evidence of common descent/Evolution.
All evidence from fossils to DNA Backs this.
NOTHING backs 'design.'




Seymour Flops said:


> Without input from some form of intelligence, there is no function, because function requires intent.  Intent requires intelligence.


False, of course, god boy.
You were the one who I just PORKED when you suggested god sent the meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs.
Slowest, Sloppiest, most brutal and clumsy 'design/intent' I ever saw.
You can't show 'Design' or 'intent.

Worse than Flames Blond...
You're a 100% Proselytizing BS artist.
A + B = C...
except there is NO 'A' and NO 'B'
You Flaming POS.



Seymour Flops said:


> The function of water running downhill is not to turn a waterwheel that generates electricity.  It may well do that, but designing a wheel to harness the power of running water requires intelligent input.
> 
> *Maybe - maybe - whatever intelligence designed life on Earth, also placed many strategic streams to be available when humans discovered water power.*  There seems an abundance of raw materials available awaiting for intelligent uses to be made of it.


"Maybe" there's a 300 mile high Liberace somewhere in Andromeda controlling the universe.




Seymour Flops said:


> But we know for sure that a simple machine such as a block and tackle does not occur without intelligent design.  If we are honest, we know that life on Earth is far more complicated than a block and tackle, and therefore even less likely to have come about by random events.



There's no 'design' and no 'intent' and you have shown none.
Yet you keep DISHONESTLY or DELUSIONALLY trying to inject 'Design' you Cannot show.
You're a persistent religious Liar.

If it was just you and me you would go away.
I've stuffed/shut you up numerous times, so you latch on to some weaker reply.
But I'm still here to call your BS.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> No organ is vestigial, if all life on Earth is the result of random processes. "


Absolutely 100% wrong and absurd.  On every level.

First, selection is not random. It is the opposite of random. Did you not know this?

Second, vestigial structures all over the Anima and plant kingdom is precisely what we would expect to see, as a result of selection operating on genetic lines.

And voila, that is exactly what we find.

Vestigial eyes that no longer function and are slowly disappearing. Wisdom teeth left over from ancestors who had larger mandibles. And on and on.

You keep saying things about evolution that a fairly well read 11th grader would know are absurd.


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have not nor has anyone else proven the claim. As for predisposed I am a Mormon hardly what I was brought up to believe. Unlike you godless fools I prayed and God answered my prayers.


I gave you the data. You refused to acknowledge it.

Ah, Mormon. Yeah, they're pretty safe. At least you weren't raised in the Middle East.

You prayed and the gods gave you stuff. Super!

I'm reminded of the survivor of a plane crash years ago who thanked the gods she survived. Most didn't. Yeah, screw those losers who died, She won the godly lottery.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have not nor has anyone else proven the claim. As for predisposed I am a Mormon hardly what I was brought up to believe. Unlike you godless fools I prayed and God answered my prayers.


Which/Witch god?
Billions of others pray to other gods that contradict yours.
At least 75% of the planet has it wrong. 
What we know for sure is man created/fabricated gods.. thousands.
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> I gave you the data. You refused to acknowledge it.
> 
> Ah, Mormon. Yeah, they're pretty safe. At least you weren't raised in the Middle East.
> 
> You prayed and the gods gave you stuff. Super!
> 
> I'm reminded of the survivor of a plane crash years ago who thanked the gods she survived. Most didn't. Yeah, screw those losers who died, She won the godly lottery.


You did not link to any proof that a single mammal had 2 or more distinctly different species come from it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You did not link to any proof that a single mammal had 2 or more distinctly different species come from it.




You tell us what that "proof" would look like.

Be specific.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Evolution, which you previous called the most rational explanation


Not evolution caused by a series of random mutations.

If you can't understand or refuse to acknowledge the difference, all further debate is pointless.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Absolutely 100% wrong and absurd.  On every level.
> 
> First, selection is not random. It is the opposite of random. Did you not know this?


If there is selection, there must be a selector.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> If there is selection, there must be a selector.


The "selector" is the collective physical laws.

If you want to say some gods set those laws on purpose, be my guest. It doesn't get in the way of anything.

Why do you suppose massive  objects in space form spheroids? Is that "random"? Of course not. Spheroids are "selected for" by gravity. 

Why white bears in the north and brown bears in the south? Random? 

Of course not. Selection.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You tell us what that "proof" would look like.
> 
> Be specific.


An actual specific provable  link from the two or more offspring that links directly to the original species.

No assumptions, no guesses, no breaks in the chain.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> An actual specific provable link from the two or more offspring that links directly to the original species.


I don't think you are following.

You have just restated what you demand be proven to you: that one species divided into two.


I am asking what the proof might look like, to you.

Be specific. A few ideas would be nice. To show you are honest.

Maybe give an example, using traits.

But keep in mind: one species does not give birth to offspring of a new species. That is not how evolution works.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't think you are following.
> 
> You have just restated what you demand be proven to you: that one species divided into two.
> 
> 
> I am asking what the proof might look like, to you.
> 
> Be specific. A few ideas would be nice. To show you are honest.


You cant provide the evidence as proven by this reply.


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> You did not link to any proof that a single mammal had 2 or more distinctly different species come from it.


Well, yes. You will deny the evidence because ultimately you see biological evolution as a lingering threat to supernatural creation, salvation and the very foundation of your belief system.

You never looked at what was presented to you, right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> Well, yes. You will deny the evidence because ultimately you see biological evolution as a lingering threat to supernatural creation, salvation and the very foundation of your belief system.
> 
> Be honest. You never looked at what was presented to you, right?


You have my listed proof. Provide it or admit you are full of shit. Guesses and assumptions are not proof of anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You cant provide the evidence as proven by this reply.


You can't even state what the evidence would look like.

I can only present the evidence that has convinced the scientific community

You reject this evidence. So I think it would only be courteous and fair if you described what that evidence would look like. So you don't rudely waste anyone's time.

So...?


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> An actual specific provable  link from the two or more offspring that links directly to the original species.
> 
> No assumptions, no guesses, no breaks in the chain.



Gee, whiz. I could demand the same evidence linking God Sr. to God Jr. 

Let’s see the data. “No assumptions, no guesses, no breaks in the chain”.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> Gee, whiz. I could demand the same evidence linking God Sr. to God Jr.
> 
> Let’s see the data. “No assumptions, no guesses, no breaks in the chain”.


No one claims there is evidence to prove God exists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt  ooor

Just admit there is no evidence that would convince you. Of course, then you also admit to just being a troll here for demanding evidence or even speaking of it. 

But a moment of honesty would cancel that out.

So just admit it.


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have my listed proof. Provide it or admit you are full of shit. Guesses and assumptions are not proof of anything.



You presented nothing.

I gave you two separate parts of a much more detailed collection of studies of which there is more comprehensive, referenced and footnoted data.

Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt  ooor
> 
> Just admit there is no evidence that would convince you. Of course, then you also admit to just being a troll here for demanding evidence or even speaking of it.
> 
> But a moment of honesty would cancel that out.
> 
> So just admit it.


Nope it is a straight up request either you can show verifiable evidence that directly links 2 specific species to a single original species or you cant.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nope it is a straight up request either you can show verifiable evidence that directly links 2 specific species to a single original species or you cant.


I can only try.

So, tell me what that evidence would look like, to you.

You are either going to attempt this, or you are going to pussy out. 

Two choices.


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> No one claims there is evidence to prove God exists.


Shocking!

Your gods are no better supported, no more likely to be the Big Kahuna gods than Zeus, who is, after all, the god that all the other gods envy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I can only try.
> 
> So, tell me what that evidence would look like, to you.
> 
> You are either going to attempt this, or you are going to pussy out.
> 
> Two choices.


What's to tell provide evidence that proves 2 distinct species are directly related to an original species.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Not evolution caused by a series of random mutations.
> 
> If you can't understand or refuse to acknowledge the difference, all further debate is pointless.


*You left out all but the first sentence of what I posted you FRAUD.
Like I said, I shut you up in a hurry you FRAUD.
You can't answer my posts.*

Evolution IS a series of Random and Failed one offs, or short-lived, or medium term, mutations. Too many 'Homo' species to name, the rest are not sapiens but shorter lived specie or subspecies. Extensive and growing Fossil record of such.
None left but us.
'God guided evolution' is 'Creation science'/intermittent and serial Creationism, and not a real term.
Natural Evolution incudes extinction or false start of failed designs. So does the fossil record.

And and all species or subspecies start drifting apart morphologically and genetically immediately on geographic separation.
They continue moving apart until they become separate subspecies and then species.

We have the Fossil record of such that is Predictable only BY Evolution.

*And since you are a thinly veiled Lying Creationist you don't believe in scientific/taxonomic 'Species' anyway you already Failed Faux-Science-attack FRAUD.
You believe in 'Kinds,' look-alikes are the same species, dropped here by god in roughly the same form.*
ie, Gorillas and Chimps have Two separate species each, (and more subspecies among the, 7 and 2 respectively), that you would call the Same species.
*You're a devout Creationist with a designER/god and 'intent' in every post.

You are a Fraud with ZERO Evidence for his main religious claim, ID: your personal version 'apparent design': same FRAUD.*

`


----------



## abu afak

And FLOPPED Seymour left out 95% of my post
namely:

ME: works by mutation and all life forms are constantly evolving.
No creature is in some final or 'perfect' form.

We are not designed and ergo are not totally separate from our ancestors and always on our way to better evolving to our environments. 
That's WHY we have vestiges and strong evidence of common descent/Evolution.
All evidence from fossils to DNA Backs this.
NOTHING backs 'design.'




> Seymour Flops said:
> Without input from some form of intelligence, there is no function, because function requires intent. Intent requires intelligence.


ME: False, of course, god boy.
*You were the one who I just PORKED when you suggested god sent the meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs.
Slowest, Sloppiest, most brutal and clumsy 'design/intent' I ever saw.
You can't show 'Design' or 'intent.*

Worse than Flames Blond...
You're a 100% Proselytizing BS artist.
A + B = C...
except there is NO 'A' and NO 'B'
You Flaming POS.



> Seymour Flops said:
> The function of water running downhill is not to turn a waterwheel that generates electricity. It may well do that, but designing a wheel to harness the power of running water requires intelligent input.
> 
> *Maybe - maybe - whatever intelligence designed life on Earth, also placed many strategic streams to be available when humans discovered water power.* There seems an abundance of raw materials available awaiting for intelligent uses to be made of it.


"Maybe" there's a 300 mile high Liberace somewhere in Andromeda controlling the universe.




> Seymour Flops said:
> But we know for sure that a simple machine such as a block and tackle does not occur without intelligent design. If we are honest, we know that life on Earth is far more complicated than a block and tackle, and therefore even less likely to have come about by random events.



*ME: There's no 'design' and no 'intent' and you have shown none.
Yet you keep DISHONESTLY or DELUSIONALLY trying to inject 'Design' you Cannot show.
You're a persistent religious Liar.

If it was just you and me you would go away.*
I've stuffed/shut you up numerous times, so you latch on to some weaker reply.
But I'm still here to call your BS.
-----
`


----------



## abu afak

My opponents can only answer my 'allies.'
Why is that?
100% in-your-face logical rebuttal by me.
Here's Retired one-line DementedGySgt's WHIFF/last shut down.



> RetiredGySgt said:
> You have not nor has anyone else proven the claim. As for predisposed I am a Mormon hardly what I was brought up to believe. Unlike you godless fools I prayed and God answered my prayers.


Me: Which/Witch god?
Billions of others pray to other gods that contradict yours.
At least 75% of the planet has it wrong.
What we know for sure is man created/fabricated gods.. thousands.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *You Lying POS.
> Bible/god/Bible/god IS Circular reasoning.
> (for the 1000th time)*
> YOU LOST.. again.
> It's Over.
> Your answer is NOT a reply to what you posted/post Regularly: PROSELYTIZE.
> 
> You are also an Illiterate.
> *My reasoning was not "circular,'" however you may "disagree" you showed no circularity.
> You Blithering fool.
> 
> Now you also PLAGIARIZE/HIDE (LOL) AnswersInGenesis (steal their organs)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vestigial Organs—Evidence for Evolution?
> 
> 
> Vestigial organs have long been one of the classic arguments used as evidence for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


You are beotchy because not because it's that time of the month, but because you are afraid of The Wrath of God.  Unfortunately, you do not understand what you are in for.  Anyway, I won in the court of science against your vestigial organs argument as they have been found to have uses.  Just think if you run into the situation where you need them to survive, but it's not there.  It would mean The Wrath of God time.

You are also way behind the times in regards to science and vestigial organs.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You are beotchy because not because it's that time of the month, but because you are afraid of The Wrath of God.  Unfortunately, you do not understand what you are in for.  Anyway, I won in the court of science against your vestigial organs argument as they have been found to have uses.  Just think if you run into the situation where you need them to survive, but it's not there.  It would mean The Wrath of God time.
> 
> You are also way behind the times in regards to science and vestigial organs.


*Science does not back up the Bible
You Rail against Science all the time.
There's only a few fake 'Creation Science'/Bible websites that 'back' up the... Bible.

and You PLAGIARIZED one a few pages back you FRAUD.*

You have ZERO except your Circular reasoning
Bible/god/bible/god/Bible you couldn't refute was/is Circular reasoning
*Then you threw in/PLAGIARIZED an AnswersInGenesis as your 'science.' That's just "Bible" again!!!
Circle J Ranch! No rebuttal.

`*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> What's to tell provide evidence that proves 2 distinct species are directly related to an original species.


You have rejected the evidence that has convinced the scientists.

So tell us what that evidence would look like

Haha, you can't. Because you are lying. There is no evidence that would convince you.

You could easily prove me wrong by describing what that proof would look lime.

So, do it. Or prove I am correct by dodging.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You have rejected the evidence that has convinced the scientists.
> 
> So tell us what that evidence would look like
> 
> Haha, you can't. Because you are lying. There is no evidence that would convince you.
> 
> You could easily prove me wrong by describing what that proof would look lime.
> 
> So, do it. Or prove I am correct by dodging.


The scientists are not convinced or it would no longer be a theory, Further the supposed evidence they use has assumptions and guesses as part and parcel of their supposed evidence. Again provided definitive proof that an origin species is DIRECTLY related to 2 specific other entirely different species. It isnt hard DNA or a complete unbroken fossil record.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> scientists are not convinced or it would no longer be a theory,


Wrong. Scientific theories always stay theories. So we can toss this nonsense out right now.

Yes, they are convinced. You lie to say otherwise. Stop lying. This is the science section, not a Trump rally.



So, let me get your horseshit straight:

You demand I provide DNA from two individuals and every individual in between, back to a common ancestor?

What an idiotic, bizarre standard. This is complete nonsense designed to be impossible. No reasonable person or scientist subscribes to this idiotic standard that you just made up out of thin air.

You did this because there is no evidence that would convince you. you are a dishonest troll who is wasting everyone's time and who would fail a sixth grade science quiz.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. Scientific theories always stay theories. So we can toss this nonsense out right now.
> 
> Yes, they are convinced. You lie to say otherwise. Stop lying. This is the science section, not a Trump rally.
> 
> 
> 
> So, let me get your horseshit straight:
> 
> You demand I provide DNA from two individuals and every individual in between, back to a common ancestor?
> 
> What an idiotic, bizarre standard. This is complete nonsense designed to be impossible. No reasonable person or scientist subscribes to this idiotic standard that you just made up out of thin air.
> 
> You did this because there is no evidence that would convince you. you are a dishonest troll who is wasting everyone's time and who would fail a sixth grade science quiz.


You could always provide the fossil record.... Ohh wait no you cant because there is none showing any such thing.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The "selector" is the collective physical laws.


Are the "collective physical laws" self-aware that they are selecting?  

Or is that just a way to avoid saying that it is random?


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you want to say some gods set those laws on purpose, be my guest. It doesn't get in the way of anything.
> 
> Why do you suppose massive  objects in space form spheroids? Is that "random"? Of course not. Spheroids are "selected for" by gravity.
> 
> Why white bears in the north and brown bears in the south? Random?
> 
> Of course not. Selection.


Oh, I see. 

You either don't know what "select" means, or you want a special definition that allows inanimate factors to "select."

Here's what select means:

*carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
"he has been selected to take part"*


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> What's to tell provide evidence that proves 2 distinct species are directly related to an original species.


It was provided to you. If you don't understand what was in the links, you can ask questions. 

More likely, you're intimidated and frustrated because the evidence will directly contradict your beliefs in supernaturalism and gods,


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> You could always provide the fossil record.... Ohh wait no you cant because there is none showing any such thing.



Ohhh, wait. You want to announce your ignorance on a public message board.





__





						CC200:  Transitional fossils
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				







			Observed Instances of Speciation
		





			Some More Observed Speciation Events
		





			CB910:  New species
		



Your best argument against the fossil record, peer reviewed data, paleo-biology, etc., amounts to ''nuh -uh, science is a conspiracy''


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> *You could always provide the fossil record.... Ohh wait no you cant because there is none showing any such thing.*


1. 





2. 




3. Rendering






.


----------



## Seymour Flops

LOL!

I love how expressive these are!

The four on the top are clearly apes, or more correctly, badly rendered drawings of apes created from fragments of skulls that may or may not have been from apes, depending on how accurately the fragments were filled in.

The eight on the top look like a cross section of attendees at the last Democratic Party convention.  They are silly and ignorant, but clearly, they are human.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> View attachment 593585
> LOL!
> 
> I love how expressive these are!
> 
> The four on the top are clearly apes, or more correctly, badly rendered drawings of apes created from fragments of skulls that may or may not have been from apes, depending on how accurately the fragments were filled in.
> 
> The eight on the top look like a cross section of attendees at the last Democratic Party convention.  They are silly and ignorant, but clearly, they are human.



You Ignored the skeletal and went for the renderings.

NatGeo - Homo Naledi




_While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo._

""A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal _eLife__._ 
_Homo naledi,_ as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans."..."

"....Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. *Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables. 
A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees. 
The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.*

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
[.....]









						This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
					

Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				




`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I will admit starting with neanderthal science has a direct link to us. Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> I will admit starting with neanderthal science has a direct link to us. Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.


Still NOTHING for me?



> RetiredGySgt said:
> You have not nor has anyone else proven the claim. As for predisposed I am a Mormon hardly what I was brought up to believe. Unlike you godless fools I prayed and God answered my prayers.


Me: Which/Witch god?
Billions of others pray to other gods that contradict yours.
At least 75% of the planet has it wrong.
What we know for sure is man created/fabricated gods.. thousands.

`


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> I will admit starting with neanderthal science has a direct link to us. Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.



''.... because I say so''. 

A really compelling argument.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> You Ignored the skeletal and went for the renderings.
> 
> NatGeo - Homo Naledi
> 
> View attachment 593628
> _While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo._
> 
> ""A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal _eLife__.
> Homo naledi,_ as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans."..."
> 
> "....Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. *Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”
> 
> The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.
> A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees.
> The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.*
> 
> “You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
> 
> 
> Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


All you showed was renderings unless I missed it.

If you showed the skeletal, it would just be small piles of bone fragments. The paleontologists fill in well over half the "fossils" with Imagination and plaster.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> All you showed was renderings unless I missed it.
> 
> If you showed the skeletal, it would just be small piles of bone fragments. The paleontologists fill in well over half the "fossils" with Imagination and plaster.



And so you Skipped the new NatGeo _Homo Naledi_ Completely. Description of skeletal remains. etc.
You are a Non-answering FRAUD as always.
No answers at all or No answers to vast majority of any post.

Seymour Flops again.

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> And so you Skipped the new NatGeo _Homo Naledi_ Completely. Description of skeletal remains. etc.
> You are a Non-answering FRAUD as always.
> No answers at all or No answers to vast majority of any post.
> 
> Seymour Flops again.
> 
> `


I'll look again later. I'm at work right now. 

You say I'll see a complete skeleton of a transitory species between non-human and human?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> I'll look again later. I'm at work right now.
> 
> You say I'll see a complete skeleton of a transitory species between non-human and human?


Sooner, later, you always DISHONESTLY WHIFF.
You're a FRAUD.
No answers to my posts, or like this time, No answer to 95%.

You're a FRAUD.
`

You did the same thing to my post #467.
and I reminded/repeated it in posts #490 and #491 !! and then you didn't answer that at all.
​And FLOPPED Seymour left out 95% of my post​namely:​​ME: works by mutation and all life forms are constantly evolving.​No creature is in some final or 'perfect' form.​​We are not designed and ergo are not totally separate from our ancestors and always on our way to better evolving to our environments.​That's WHY we have vestiges and strong evidence of common descent/Evolution.​All evidence from fossils to DNA Backs this.​NOTHING backs 'design.'​​​


> Seymour Flops said:
> Without input from some form of intelligence, there is no function, because function requires intent. Intent requires intelligence.​



ME: False, of course, god boy.​*You were the one who I just PORKED when you suggested god sent the meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs.*​*Slowest, Sloppiest, most brutal and clumsy 'design/intent' I ever saw.*​*You can't show 'Design' or 'intent.*​​Worse than Flames Blond...​You're a 100% Proselytizing BS artist.​A + B = C...​except there is NO 'A' and NO 'B'​You Flaming POS.​​


> Seymour Flops said:
> The function of water running downhill is not to turn a waterwheel that generates electricity. It may well do that, but designing a wheel to harness the power of running water requires intelligent input.​​*Maybe - maybe - whatever intelligence designed life on Earth, also placed many strategic streams to be available when humans discovered water power.* There seems an abundance of raw materials available awaiting for intelligent uses to be made of it.​



"Maybe" there's a 300 mile high Liberace somewhere in Andromeda controlling the universe.​​​


> Seymour Flops said:
> But we know for sure that a simple machine such as a block and tackle does not occur without intelligent design. If we are honest, we know that life on Earth is far more complicated than a block and tackle, and therefore even less likely to have come about by random events.​



*ME: There's no 'design' and no 'intent' and you have shown none.*​*Yet you keep DISHONESTLY or DELUSIONALLY trying to inject 'Design' you Cannot show.*​*You're a persistent religious Liar.*​​*If it was just you and me you would go away.*​I've stuffed/shut you up numerous times, so you latch on to some weaker reply.​But I'm still here to call your BS.​-----
`


You're A FRAUD.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Sooner, later, you always DISHONESTLY WHIFF.
> You're a FRAUD.
> No answers to my posts, or like this time, No answer to 95%.
> 
> You're a FRAUD.
> `
> 
> You did the same thing to my post #467.
> and I reminded/repeated it in posts #490 and #491 !! and then you didn't answer that at all.
> ​And FLOPPED Seymour left out 95% of my post​namely:​​ME: works by mutation and all life forms are constantly evolving.​No creature is in some final or 'perfect' form.​​We are not designed and ergo are not totally separate from our ancestors and always on our way to better evolving to our environments.​That's WHY we have vestiges and strong evidence of common descent/Evolution.​All evidence from fossils to DNA Backs this.​NOTHING backs 'design.'​​​
> 
> ME: False, of course, god boy.​*You were the one who I just PORKED when you suggested god sent the meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs.*​*Slowest, Sloppiest, most brutal and clumsy 'design/intent' I ever saw.*​*You can't show 'Design' or 'intent.*​​Worse than Flames Blond...​You're a 100% Proselytizing BS artist.​A + B = C...​except there is NO 'A' and NO 'B'​You Flaming POS.​​
> 
> "Maybe" there's a 300 mile high Liberace somewhere in Andromeda controlling the universe.​​​
> 
> *ME: There's no 'design' and no 'intent' and you have shown none.*​*Yet you keep DISHONESTLY or DELUSIONALLY trying to inject 'Design' you Cannot show.*​*You're a persistent religious Liar.*​​*If it was just you and me you would go away.*​I've stuffed/shut you up numerous times, so you latch on to some weaker reply.​But I'm still here to call your BS.​-----
> `
> 
> 
> You're A FRAUD.


So, that's a no on that complete skeleton?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> So, that's a no on that complete skeleton?


NO CONTENT FRAUD.
There's over 100 Naledi Skeletons of various states.
And even with a partials it/They have modern human hands but Climbing tree fingers.. etc, etc

YOU'RE A FRAUD..
`
\
Again:

"... *Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.
A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees.
The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. 
The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.*

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...​


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> NO CONTENT FRAUD.
> There's over 100 Naledi Skeletons of various states.
> And even with a partials it/They have modern human hands but Climbing tree fingers.. etc, etc
> 
> YOU'RE A FRAUD..
> `
> \
> Again:
> 
> "... *Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”*​​*The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.*​*A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees.*​*The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. *​*The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.*​​“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...​


Ok if that's all true, show me a picture of the most complete Naledi skeleton. Not a drawing, not bone fragments covered with modelling material to show what it "would have looked like."

Just an actual photograph of the actual specimen, if you please.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Ok if that's all true, show me a picture of the most complete Naledi skeleton. Not a drawing, not bone fragments covered with modelling material to show what it "would have looked like."
> 
> Just an actual photow graph of the actual specimen, if you please.


I don't have to show you a complete skeleton.
They have human hands and ape Fingers.
Human molars and ape roots of them
even on the Same Pelvis it differs top to bottom, etc.
in the bolded section.
100+ skeletons found in the same cave

You are DISHONEST and Stupid Liar.

`


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> So, that's a no on that complete skeleton?



This is the grinding ignorance that typifies the creationer mindset. The expectation of perfectly preserved fossil remains of every single intermediate change of species after hundreds of thousands of years is right of the playbook of the creationer ministries, 

It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You could always provide the fossil record.... Ohh wait no you cant because there is none showing any such thing.


The entire fossil record shows us this. It has convinced the entire scientific community. Doesn't that give you pause to wonder if, oh just maybe, you just don't have any idea what you are talking about? A normal person would think that way.

So, the very wolf like animal that appeared then disappeared shortly before wolves appeared... where did it come from? Where did it go?  

This should be good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> Are the "collective physical laws" self-aware that they are selecting?
> 
> Or is that just a way to avoid saying that it is random?


I just covered that. If you have a point to make, go ahead and try to make it.



Seymour Flops said:


> You either don't know what "select" means, or you want a special definition that allows inanimate factors to "select."


No, it means you don't understand the concept of selection. This is you trying to force your magical sky daddy into a place where it is not required. Again. And again and again and again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.


Well that's very stupid of you. So everything before neanderthals was magic? Or do you think, oh just maybe, the universe worked the same before neanderthals as after neanderthals?


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> I don't have to show you a complete skeleton.
> They have human hands and ape Fingers.
> Human molars and ape roots of them
> even on the Same Pelvis it differs top to bottom, etc.
> in the bolded section.
> 100+ skeletons found in the same cave
> 
> You are DISHONEST and Stupid Liar.
> 
> `


It is you who are making claims but not showing any photos of these supposed skeletons.

What about this fossil discovery.  I suppose you will say this is real also?

*"The . . . fossils were found over several years and included a mandible and set of teeth, parts of a human-like skull and a canine tooth. There were also rudimentary stone tools, a carved slab of bone and fragments of fossils from Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era mammals, De Groote told Live Science.

"The fossils had the same dark reddish-brown color as the surrounding Pleistocene or Pliocene gravel pits in which they were uncovered. The mandible resembled an ape's, while the skull appeared human, and the canine tooth could have belonged to either species."*

That seems just as convincing. 

Are you convinced?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> It is you who are making claims but not showing any photos of these supposed skeletons.
> 
> What about this fossil discovery.  I suppose you will say this is real also?
> 
> *"The . . . fossils were found over several years and included a mandible and set of teeth, parts of a human-like skull and a canine tooth. There were also rudimentary stone tools, a carved slab of bone and fragments of fossils from Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era mammals, De Groote told Live Science.
> 
> "The fossils had the same dark reddish-brown color as the surrounding Pleistocene or Pliocene gravel pits in which they were uncovered. The mandible resembled an ape's, while the skull appeared human, and the canine tooth could have belonged to either species."*
> 
> That seems just as convincing.
> 
> Are you convinced?


I.E., exactly what we should expect to find, when digging into hominin fossils from a long time ago. Species with intermediary traits between our ape ancestors and us. 

Literally every single shred of evidence we have ever found supports this.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I.E., exactly what we should expect to find, when digging into hominin fossils from a long time ago. Species with intermediary traits between our ape ancestors and us.
> 
> Literally every single shred of evidence we have ever found supports this.


But how strong is that kind of evidence?  A mandible (that's a "jawbone") that resembles an ape's, with a skull that resembles a human and a canine tooth that could be either.  That kind of evidence seems more like guesswork, don't you think?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> But how strong is that kind of evidence?  A mandible (that's a "jawbone") that resembles an ape's, with a skull that resembles a human and a canine tooth that could be either.  That kind of evidence seems more like guesswork, don't you think?


On one hand, it suggests the designer gods are really incompetent designers.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> On one hand, it suggests the designer gods are really incompetent designers.


How so?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> But how strong is that kind of evidence?


As strong as evidence can be, when it is what we find every single time. All in the same chronological order, in every part of the animal and plant kingdom.

Put that together with all of the mutual supportive evidence from every field of science, and the picture is very clear

Where you seem to be stuck is thinking humans are special little boys and girls of gods. Humans are animals and evolved from earlier species just as every other animal did. You also seem to think there is any real debate over this. There isn't. You are literally 150 years behind the world of intelligent humans.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As strong as evidence can be, when it is what we find every single time. All in the same chronological order, in every part of the animal and plant kingdom.
> 
> Put that together with all of the mutual supportive evidence from every field of science, and the picture is very clear
> 
> Where you seem to be stuck is thinking humans are special little boys and girls of gods. Humans are animals and evolved from earlier species just as every other animal did. You also seem to think there is any real debate over this. There isn't. You are literally 150 years behind the world of intelligent humans.


Wow, Fort Fun Indiana and Hollie!

You two may have a great scientific/historical distinction.  The last two people in history to fall for the Piltdown Man Hoax of 1912.

Here is where I got that description of the fake missing link:









						Piltdown Man: Infamous Fake Fossil
					

The Piltdown Man, claimed to be a "missing link," was one of the most successful and consequential hoaxes in scientific history.




					www.livescience.com
				




*In 1912, a British amateur archeologist named Charles Dawson wrote to London's Natural History Museum claiming to have discovered the missing evolutionary link between apes and humans in a fossil he had dug up in Piltdown, Sussex. This was the beginning of the Piltdown Man hoax, one of the most successful and consequential hoaxes in scientific history. Dawson's Piltdown Man was conclusively established as a hoax in 1953, after decades of leading scientists down the wrong path of evolutionary study. 

The Piltdown Man was a collection of "fossils" assumed to be from the same Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era early human, according to Isabelle De Groote, a professor at the Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology at Liverpool John Moores University and author of the 2016 article "New genetic and morphological evidence suggests a single hoaxes created ‘Piltdown Man.'" 

The Piltdown Man fossils were found over several years and included a mandible and set of teeth, parts of a human-like skull and a canine tooth. There were also rudimentary stone tools, a carved slab of bone and fragments of fossils from Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era mammals, De Groote told Live Science.

 . . . 

In reality, the jawbones and tooth came from an orangutan and the skulls from medieval human bones, De Groote said. 

For more than a century, the identity of the creator of the fake fossils was unknown, but De Groote's study, published in August 2016 by Royal Society Open Science, determined that Dawson was the most likely sole forger.*

Don't be so gullible, McFly!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> Wow, Fort Fun Indiana and Hollie!
> 
> You two may have a great scientific/historical distinction.  The last two people in history to fall for the Piltdown Man Hoax of 1912.
> 
> Here is where I got that description of the fake missing link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piltdown Man: Infamous Fake Fossil
> 
> 
> The Piltdown Man, claimed to be a "missing link," was one of the most successful and consequential hoaxes in scientific history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In 1912, a British amateur archeologist named Charles Dawson wrote to London's Natural History Museum claiming to have discovered the missing evolutionary link between apes and humans in a fossil he had dug up in Piltdown, Sussex. This was the beginning of the Piltdown Man hoax, one of the most successful and consequential hoaxes in scientific history. Dawson's Piltdown Man was conclusively established as a hoax in 1953, after decades of leading scientists down the wrong path of evolutionary study.
> 
> The Piltdown Man was a collection of "fossils" assumed to be from the same Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era early human, according to Isabelle De Groote, a professor at the Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology at Liverpool John Moores University and author of the 2016 article "New genetic and morphological evidence suggests a single hoaxes created ‘Piltdown Man.'"
> 
> The Piltdown Man fossils were found over several years and included a mandible and set of teeth, parts of a human-like skull and a canine tooth. There were also rudimentary stone tools, a carved slab of bone and fragments of fossils from Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era mammals, De Groote told Live Science.*
> 
> *. . .
> 
> In reality, the jawbones and tooth came from an orangutan and the skulls from medieval human bones, De Groote said.
> 
> For more than a century, the identity of the creator of the fake fossils was unknown, but De Groote's study, published in August 2016 by Royal Society Open Science, determined that Dawson was the most likely sole forger.*
> 
> Don't be so gullible, McFly!


Haha, what a desperate attempt. Yes, the two of us and the entire Global scientific community are all still stuck in a hoax from 110 years ago. Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, what a desperate attempt. Yes, the two of us and the entire Global scientific community are all still stuck in a hoax from 110 years ago. Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.


Honestly, I never thought you would fall for it.  Surely someone who claims to know and understand human evolution would have been aware of the Piltdown Man Hoax.

I seriously expected you to pick up on it and say something like, "an old hoax doesn't mean contemporary people would fall for it."  

I guess you can't say that now . . .


----------



## abu afak

*Piltdown was a one man show, not a community of scientists that dug and researched this for Years.
Yes a conspiracy of Atheists!*
*Seymour Flops the FRAUD Gutted again.*


NatGeo article/pic







`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> Honestly, I never thought you would fall for it.  Surely someone who claims to know and understand human evolution would have been aware of the Piltdown Man Hoax.
> 
> I seriously expected you to pick up on it and say something like, "an old hoax doesn't mean contemporary people would fall for it."
> 
> I guess you can't say that now . . .


I wasn't speaking to any specific case. You are masturbating now. 

But what else can you do? You would fail a 7th grade science quiz. Any room of educated people would laugh at you behind your back and roll their eyes. 

So here you are, pulling your taffy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Well, I've seen enough.

Another sockpuppet troll.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Piltdown was a one man show, not a community of scientists that dug and researched this for Years.
> Yes a conspiracy of Atheists!
> Seymour Flop the FRAUD.
> 
> 
> NatGeo article/pic
> 
> View attachment 594072
> 
> 
> `


So, that was a one-time thing?  There have been no other evolutionary hoaxes?

The above is still an illustration, not a photograph.  Why are you afraid to show the actual bones? 

How do you know that "H. naledi" is not yet another amalgamation hoax?

How do you know that it isn't simply a human with Microcephaly?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So we have here yet another manbaby whose intellect failed to launch due to religious brianwashing.

Clearly these crybaby frauds are losing eleventy trillion to zero on the scoreboard.

So what else can they do, besides come here and masturbate? They would get laughed out of the room of any educated company. Most women would head for the door the moment their anti-intellectual diarrhea started dribbling from their mouths.

The best part is how they declare victory. Every time.

Poor little dummies.

And Frannie here is the most pathetic of all.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> How so?


Look at all their failures.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> So, that was a one-time thing?  There have been no other evolutionary hoaxes?
> 
> The above is still an illustration, not a photograph.  Why are you afraid to show the actual bones?
> 
> How do you know that "H. naledi" is not yet another amalgamation hoax?
> 
> How do you know that it isn't simply a human with Microcephaly?


Actual bones would mean nothing to you and you would say so.
Are you a paleontologist?

Piltdown was one man's find, this was dug up over years by Scores of educated people.
All lying/fraudulent?
It was ONLY scientists in fact, that could and did out Piltdown as fake.

You raging ***hole.

You're just another Deluded 'Liar for Jesus' whose been utterly beaten here.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> It was ONLY scientists in fact, that could and did out Piltdown as fake.


Yep.

But morons like him are immune to irony.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Actual bones would mean nothing to you and you would say so.
> Are you a paleontologist?


Are you?

If I were a paleontologist, you can bet that I  would look at bones, not drawings of bones.



abu afak said:


> Piltdown was one man's find, this was dug up over years by Scores of educated people.
> All lying/fraudulent?
> It was ONLY scientists in fact, that could and did out Piltdown as fake.
> 
> You raging ***hole
> 
> You're just another Deluded Liar for Jesus whose been utterly beaten here.
> 
> `


Well, this is certainly an emotional topic for you.

Yes, Piltdown Man is not 100% identical to H. Naledi.  Mainly because no one thing is ever 100% identical to anything else.

Maybe I should see if there are any other hoaxes of evolutionary science and start a thread about that.

Ya think?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Wow, Fort Fun Indiana and Hollie!
> 
> You two may have a great scientific/historical distinction.  The last two people in history to fall for the Piltdown Man Hoax of 1912.
> 
> Here is where I got that description of the fake missing link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piltdown Man: Infamous Fake Fossil
> 
> 
> The Piltdown Man, claimed to be a "missing link," was one of the most successful and consequential hoaxes in scientific history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In 1912, a British amateur archeologist named Charles Dawson wrote to London's Natural History Museum claiming to have discovered the missing evolutionary link between apes and humans in a fossil he had dug up in Piltdown, Sussex. This was the beginning of the Piltdown Man hoax, one of the most successful and consequential hoaxes in scientific history. Dawson's Piltdown Man was conclusively established as a hoax in 1953, after decades of leading scientists down the wrong path of evolutionary study.
> 
> The Piltdown Man was a collection of "fossils" assumed to be from the same Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era early human, according to Isabelle De Groote, a professor at the Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology at Liverpool John Moores University and author of the 2016 article "New genetic and morphological evidence suggests a single hoaxes created ‘Piltdown Man.'"
> 
> The Piltdown Man fossils were found over several years and included a mandible and set of teeth, parts of a human-like skull and a canine tooth. There were also rudimentary stone tools, a carved slab of bone and fragments of fossils from Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era mammals, De Groote told Live Science.*
> 
> *. . .
> 
> In reality, the jawbones and tooth came from an orangutan and the skulls from medieval human bones, De Groote said.
> 
> For more than a century, the identity of the creator of the fake fossils was unknown, but De Groote's study, published in August 2016 by Royal Society Open Science, determined that Dawson was the most likely sole forger.*
> 
> Don't be so gullible, McFly!


It's 2022 and religious extremists are still falling for the Piltdown man hoax.

Not surprisingly, it was the science community that corrected the error. It was development of a new dating technique, the fluorine absorption test, that ended it.

Not surprisingly, which is not surprising, it wasn't the community of religious extremists / creation ministries which developed the fluorine adsorption test, it was the science community. As we know, it is the community of religious extremists / creation ministries that hope to tear down science in favor of promoting their fears and superstitions.

Perhaps bring that up at your next Jim Jones Memorial love-fest.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> It's 2022 and religious extremists are still falling for the Piltdown man hoax.


Maybe they are.  Do you have examples?

I provided two examples of Darwinians falling for it in 2022.  I believe you were one of them, but there seems to be three or four of you that all use the same words, so it's hard to tell who is who.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Maybe they are.  Do you have examples?
> 
> I provided two examples of Darwinians falling for it in 2022.  I believe you were one of them, but there seems to be three or four of you that all use the same words, so it's hard to tell who is who.



You provided nothing but the same, tired, cutting and pasting that mimics the other religious extremists who cut and paste similar anti-science material they find on wiki.


Do statues of the so-called virgin Mary really bleed from the eyes?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Are you?
> 
> If I were a paleontologist, you can bet that I  would look at bones, not drawings of bones.
> 
> 
> Well, this is certainly an emotional topic for you.
> 
> Yes, Piltdown Man is not 100% identical to H. Naledi.  Mainly because no one thing is ever 100% identical to anything else.
> 
> Maybe I should see if there are any other hoaxes of evolutionary science and start a thread about that.
> 
> Ya think?


I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.

You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
That one man fraud debunked BY science.

You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.

`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.
> 
> You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
> That one man fraud debunked BY science.
> 
> You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.
> 
> `


a fraud that was science for decades.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> a fraud that was science for decades.


No it wasn't. Now you're just kind of flailing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No it wasn't. Now you're just kind of flailing.


41 years it was accepted.  Piltdown Man - Wikipedia


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> 41 years it was accepted.  Piltdown Man - Wikipedia


That does not mean "it was science". furthermore, it was just a hoax example of ideas that have been confirmed many times over from 1000s of other fossil finds.

This would be like me pointing at a time when Christians said the world would end, when it then didn't, and saying "Therefore Christianity is false."

But you are so rabid, desperate, and eager to have ANYTHING AT ALL here that you are just clinging to embarrassing horseshit.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> 41 years it was accepted.  Piltdown Man - Wikipedia


Evolution has been going 160 years and throughout an explosion of new sciences in that time.
All relevant ones have either not contradicted it or Helped Confirm it (DNA, Isotopic dating etc)
It didn't and doesn't depend on ONE bogus find.

Millions of fossils have been found by Thousands of credible people.
One fossil in the wrong strata could have disproved it.
Of course, none has.
If, ie, humans were ('special' and) made different genetically with ie, XYZ or solid state with no DNA, that too would Disprove Evo.
Instead we are just part of a traceable chain/branch of Evo.

Evo is only controversial because of Indoctrinated Biblical literalists like you can't deal with the contradictions with Genesis.
(Same with Islamic FundaMENTALcases and the Koran)

Now go check the propane tank so it doesn't blow up the trailer.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.
> 
> You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
> That one man fraud debunked BY science.
> 
> You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.
> 
> `


It isn't the fossils that need to be "debunked."  

It's the fact that researchers (I can't call them scientists) take fossil that are bone fragments and embellish them in drawings and modelling material to make them seem to show things that they simply do not show.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That does not mean "it was science". furthermore, it was just a hoax example of ideas that have been confirmed many times over from 1000s of other fossil finds.


OK, then.

Show me the fossils that have confirmed something and tell what you think they have confirmed.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This would be like me pointing at a time when Christians said the world would end, when it then didn't, and saying "Therefore Christianity is false."


Christianity _is _false. 

The large number of hoaxes that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity are indeed evidence of its falseness.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But you are so rabid, desperate, and eager to have ANYTHING AT ALL here that you are just clinging to embarrassing horseshit.


Do people ever seriously respond to statements like that from you, or is not giving them anything that can be logically responded to part of the plan to cover up your incredible ignorance on topics that you debate?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> *Christianity is false.
> 
> The large number of hoaxes that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity are indeed evidence of its falseness.*



So ""WHO Sent the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs just at the right time""*?*

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> So ""WHO Sent the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs just at the right time""*?*
> 
> `


Assumes facts not in evidence.

No one knows how dinosaurs died off.  My favorite among the theories is that nocturnal mammals ate their eggs.  Unlike Darwinians with their favorite theory, I openly admit that my favorite theory is just a theory that I happen to like.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Assumes facts not in evidence.
> 
> No one knows how dinosaurs died off.  My favorite among the theories is that nocturnal mammals ate their eggs.  Unlike Darwinians with their favorite theory, I openly admit that my favorite theory is just a theory that I happen to like.


But that was YOUR statement.
And in fact, the meteor itself is Certainly In evidence. Just not Your claim that anyone "sent it."
What an idiot.
Allah?
Vishnu?
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> But that was YOUR statement.
> And in fact, the meteor itself is Certainly In evidence. Just not Your claim that anyone "sent it."
> What an idiot.
> Allah?
> Vishnu?
> `


MY statement?  

I don't remember making any statement about meteor's killing off dinosaurs.

But if you have a picture of that meteor with proof that it killed off the dinosaurs, I'd like to see it. 

I'll happily change my mind if enough evidence is provided.  Unlike Darwinians, my whole self-worth is not tied up in one particular theory about what happened millions of years ago.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> MY statement?
> *I don't remember making any statement about meteor's killing off dinosaurs.
> 
> But if you have a picture of that meteor with proof that it killed off the dinosaurs, I'd like to see it.*
> 
> I'll happily change my mind if enough evidence is provided.  Unlike Darwinians, my whole self-worth is not tied up in one particular theory about



*You said it in THIS thread LIAR Boy:
Post #352
and you said it was not a coincidence.*





__





						More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
					

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3:  In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





> Seymour Flops said:
> *Who sent the Meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
> Was that another co-inkie-dink?*



MY answer then
​""Now you're really outing yourself boy.​YES!​Oh yeah, 'god sent the meteor.'​And what is that?​*An 'intelligent'/'designed' way to work?*​*Wiping out more than half of 'his creation' because it was imperfect/a Mistake.*​*Punishing the dinosaurs and much other life for their sins!! LOL*​*Billions of years wasted, billions of species extinct Instead of more coherent True 'design' to get to where we are now?*​You just set your @ss on fire again.​​Go back to Creation-con or AIG.​None of them could debate me either.​Seymour Flops again.​
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops  said:

"
*Who sent the Meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
Was that another co-inkie-dink?"*


Hahahahahahahah

oh my goodness how embarrassingly stupid*....*


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> It isn't the fossils that need to be "debunked."
> 
> It's the fact that researchers (I can't call them scientists) take fossil that are bone fragments and embellish them in drawings and modelling material to make them seem to show things that they simply do not show.


There are obviously complete fossils, more than 6,000 years old, that document a planet which produced an astonishingly broad spectrum of life. Ignorance and denial of facts on your part is your problem to deal with.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> There are obviously complete fossils, more than 6,000 years old, that document a planet which produced an astonishingly broad spectrum of life. Ignorance and denial of facts on your part is your problem to deal with.


Oh good!

Now maybe we're getting somewhere.

Show me - in your very next reply, please - three of the best examples of complete fossils and how they prove that Darwinian evolution is fact, not theory.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Oh good!
> 
> Now maybe we're getting somewhere.
> 
> Show me - in your very next reply, please - three of the best examples of complete fossils and how they prove that Darwinian evolution is fact, not theory.


On the other hand, you can find examples of complete fossils with a search engine. I can think of three museums that have displays of many examples. With a search engine, you can find those. Change in populations over time subject to environmental factors is a component of Darwinian theory. That has been proven.

Show me the ID'iot creationer ''*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*''. As you rattle on with your frantic, anti-science Jihad, you refuse to make any defendable case for your gods and why those gods played such a cruel joke on you.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> On the other hand, you can find examples of complete fossils with a search engine. I can think of three museums that have displays of many examples. With a search engine, you can find those. Change in populations over time subject to environmental factors is a component of Darwinian theory. That has been proven.


Yes, changes cause other changes. If theres a freeze, and 95% of a species population die out the remaining 5% would likely be the ones with more fur, more fat, more traits that resist cold.

Could that be how new species originate? That's a possibility but it is far to great a leap to declare that possibility a fact.

The species population whose less resistant to cold individuals have died out are still the same species. If the cold persists, so will they.  As THE SAME SPECIES. If the cold recedes, the species will regress toward the mean.  As THE SAME SPECIES.

Darwin presented a somewhat plausible but highly unlikely theory of the origin of species. It has been seized on by those desperate to cling to and validate their non-deist faith.


Hollie said:


> Show me the ID'iot creationer ''*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*''. As you rattle on with your frantic, anti-science Jihad, you refuse to make any defendable case for your gods and why those gods played such a cruel joke on you.


I guess I should Do that if I were insisting on "the Gawds did it." I'm not, so why bother?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, changes cause other changes. If theres a freeze, and 95% of a species population die out the remaining 5% would likely be the ones with more fur, more fat, more traits that resist cold.
> 
> Could that be how new species originate? That's a possibility but it is far to great a leap to declare that possibility a fact.
> 
> *The species population whose less resistant to cold individuals have died out are still the same species. If the cold persists, so will they.  As THE SAME SPECIES. If the cold recedes, the species will regress toward the mean.  As THE SAME SPECIES.*
> 
> Darwin presented a somewhat plausible but highly unlikely theory of the origin of species. It has been seized on by those desperate to cling to and validate their non-deist faith.
> 
> I guess I should Do that if I were insisting on "the Gawds did it." I'm not, so why bother?


False.
Many species are Extinct. Period.
Like Most Creationists and IDers you believe only in 'microevolution,' not scientific evolution. (or even modern taxonomy)
Like most Creationists you believe in CREATED 'Kinds' (Not 'species') that cannot change without divine intervention.
And even in the case of adaptation, they do become become different species, Families, and genera.
The evidence for Common descent of all life is overwhelming. It's on all our bodies and in our DNA.

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> False.
> Many species are Extinct. Period.


Which proves nothing about evolution.


abu afak said:


> Like Most Creationists and IDers you believe only in 'microevolution,' not scientific evolution. (or even modern taxonomy)


If by "microevolution," you mean changes in population within species, there is evidence for that, so it is credible.  Changing from one species to another via natural selection?  As soon as you have evidence for that, I want to see it!


abu afak said:


> Like most Creationists you believe in CREATED 'Kinds' (Not 'species') that cannot change without divine intervention.


No, I call species "species."  What is your evidence that I call them "kinds," and where is your quote from me where I discuss "divine intervention?"


abu afak said:


> And even in the case of adaptation, they do become become different species, Families, and genera.


When have we observed that in modern times?  Or when at any time have we directly observed it?


abu afak said:


> The evidence for Common descent of all life is overwhelming. It's on all our bodies and in our DNA.
> 
> `


Just blurting out the word "DNA," doesn't prove anything.  If species were brought about by a designer, why would that designer have started from scratch with each new species?  Is that what human designers of houses, cars, bridges, factories, clothing, video games, or anything else do?

Do they say, "I don't want to know anything about how current cars work!  I just want to start over and build a different kind of car!"  No, they never say that.  They don't even start designing cars without a graduate level grounding in how existing cars work. 

So, if you look at 2022 Ford Mustang Hybrid, you will find some features in common with the 1908 Model T.  Because the designers along the way gradually build on that design.  That's what designers do.  They certainly do not make random changes and hope that one out of a million of those changes will be useful.

Ok, what is the rest of this "overwhelming" evidence of common descent?  What is any evidence at all against a designer, when species seem so obviously designed?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> *...So, if you look at 2022 Ford Mustang Hybrid, you will find some features in common with the 1908 Model T.  Because the Designers along the way gradually build on that Design.  That's what Designers do.*  They certainly do not make random changes and hope that one out of a million of those changes will be useful.
> 
> Ok, what is the rest of this "overwhelming" evidence of common descent?  What is any evidence at all against a designer, when species seem so obviously designed?


You're a creationist.

Wiki:

*"Intelligent design* (*ID*)* is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God,* presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5]
Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6]* ID is a form of creationism that Lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore Not science.*[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase _intelligent design_ had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in _Of Pandas and People_,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. *The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to Creation science and Creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of Creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.*[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
*This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot Uncouple itself from its Creationist, and thus Religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore Violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.*[15].."
.....

`


----------



## abu afak

Flops believes in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
He's a Fraud.
ie,
*Post #352* accidentally OUTING himself. (then lied about it)




__





						More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
					

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3:  In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





Seymour Flops said:


> *Who sent the meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
> Was that another co-inkie-dink?*



`


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As strong as evidence can be, when it is what we find every single time. All in the same chronological order, in every part of the animal and plant kingdom.
> 
> Put that together with all of the mutual supportive evidence from every field of science, and the picture is very clear
> 
> Where you seem to be stuck is thinking humans are special little boys and girls of gods. Humans are animals and evolved from earlier species just as every other animal did. You also seem to think there is any real debate over this. There isn't. You are literally 150 years behind the world of intelligent humans.


I've posted the evidence scores of times.
Seymour Flops must be in denial to even post, ie, in this thread.
One of my many Haymaker evidentiary ones. 
He HAD to put me on ignore not to have his worldview collapse..

`


----------



## abu afak

Hard evidence of Evo here too james bond


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You're a creationist.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *"Intelligent design* (*ID*)* is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God,* presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5]
> Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6]* ID is a form of creationism that Lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore Not science.*[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]
> 
> Although the phrase _intelligent design_ had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in _Of Pandas and People_,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. *The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to Creation science and Creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of Creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.*[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
> *This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot Uncouple itself from its Creationist, and thus Religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore Violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.*[15].."
> .....
> 
> `


ID is not my argument, but it has parts that I can support.  Let's define it first versus your evolution.

"The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. Certain biological features defy the standard Darwinian random-chance explanation, because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as evidence for a designer. There are three primary arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory: 1) irreducible complexity, 2) specified complexity, and 3) the anthropic principle.

One of the arguments for Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, is defined as “a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Simply put, life is comprised of intertwined parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning system. For example, the human eye is obviously a very useful system. Without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, a randomly mutated incomplete eye would actually be counterproductive to the survival of a species and would therefore be eliminated through the process of natural selection. An eye is not a useful system unless all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time."

I support the above and it destroys evolution right off the bat.  I don't think any evolutionists was able to explain.  Chalk up another victory for me and the creationists?


----------



## james bond

The second principle of ID does not seem as 100% certain to me.  Can you produce any examples to counter it?

"Another argument for Intelligent Design, specified complexity, is the concept that, since specified complex patterns can be found in organisms, some form of guidance must have accounted for their origin. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random processes. For example, a room filled with 100 monkeys and 100 computers may eventually produce a few words, or maybe even a sentence, but it would never produce a Shakespearean play. And how much more complex is biological life than a Shakespearean play?"

The third principle does not seem 100% certain.  One would have to prove this fine tuning and I don't think everything can be covered.  Anyway, the evos have 0% evidence, so the third principle can stand or fail on its own.

The anthropic principle of Intelligent Design states that the world and universe are “fine-tuned” to allow for life on Earth. If the ratio of elements in the atmosphere of the earth was altered slightly, many species would quickly cease to exist. If the earth were significantly closer to or further away from the sun, many species would cease to exist. The existence and development of life on Earth requires so many variables to be perfectly in tune that it would be impossible for all the variables to come into being through random, uncoordinated events.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You're a creationist.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *"Intelligent design* (*ID*)* is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God,* presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5]
> Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6]* ID is a form of creationism that Lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore Not science.*[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]
> 
> Although the phrase _intelligent design_ had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in _Of Pandas and People_,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. *The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to Creation science and Creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of Creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.*[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
> *This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot Uncouple itself from its Creationist, and thus Religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore Violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.*[15].."
> .....
> 
> `


The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision really hurt.  The creation science people should not be lumped in with ID proponents.  We'll have to see if creationists can come back with their own arguments.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Hard evidence of Evo here too james bond


Again, you are WRONG.  Evolution has no evidence except to those who have fallen for its lies.  I've explained it before and do it so again for the newcomers.

"As scientific understanding of the human body has grown, we have discovered  the function of many organs that in the past were thought to be useless. The  appendix, the pineal gland, the coccyx, and the thymus gland are just a few of the structures previously thought to have no significant function. In fact, declaring that certain structures have become useless may have actually  hindered scientists’ search for their function. After all, if an organ is considered to be  an evolutionary left over, why bother looking for its function?

Furthermore, the process by which an organ or structure could become vestigial has never been adequately explained. What is the mechanism that leads to loss of function?  For example, consider the appendix, which was classified as a useless evolutionary leftover (although its function has been demonstrated in recent years). Evolutionists have postulated that in the past, man had a larger cecum, but as  man progressed from a higher-fiber diet to a lower-fiber diet, the larger cecum became  less necessary. Thus the appendix is said to have resulted from a loss of cecal size. What is  not explained is just how a change in diet would change the DNA—adding, subtracting, or modifying information—in order to  bring about this structural change in man.

The entire concept of vestigial organs is based on evolutionary storytelling.  There is nothing in operational science to suggest that any of these so-called  evolutionary “remnants” are less than fully functional in their present form.

Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to  this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy.

Our Creator, Jesus Christ, took on the attributes of humanity (yet without sin),  humbled Himself, and entered this sin-cursed earth (Philippians  2:5–8). He then died on the cross, took the punishment for our sin upon Himself, and rose gloriously from the dead. His was a true rescue mission.  (For more, take a look at the best news you’ll ever read.)

If you believe in His life, sacrifice, and resurrection, then, for you, one  thing _does_ become vestigial . . . death."









						Vestigial Organs: A Vanishing Argument
					

Vestigial organs are supposedly useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. However, this claim requires preconceived belief and an ignorance of the evidence.




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Again, you are WRONG.  Evolution has no evidence except to those who have fallen for its lies.  I've explained it before and do it so again for the newcomers.
> 
> "As scientific understanding of the human body has grown, we have discovered  the function of many organs that in the past were thought to be useless. The  appendix, the pineal gland, the coccyx, and the thymus gland are just a few of the structures previously thought to have no significant function. In fact, declaring that certain structures have become useless may have actually  hindered scientists’ search for their function. After all, if an organ is considered to be  an evolutionary left over, why bother looking for its function?
> 
> Furthermore, the process by which an organ or structure could become vestigial has never been adequately explained. What is the mechanism that leads to loss of function?  For example, consider the appendix, which was classified as a useless evolutionary leftover (although its function has been demonstrated in recent years). Evolutionists have postulated that in the past, man had a larger cecum, but as  man progressed from a higher-fiber diet to a lower-fiber diet, the larger cecum became  less necessary. Thus the appendix is said to have resulted from a loss of cecal size. What is  not explained is just how a change in diet would change the DNA—adding, subtracting, or modifying information—in order to  bring about this structural change in man.
> 
> The entire concept of vestigial organs is based on evolutionary storytelling.  There is nothing in operational science to suggest that any of these so-called  evolutionary “remnants” are less than fully functional in their present form.
> 
> Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to  this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy.
> 
> Our Creator, Jesus Christ, took on the attributes of humanity (yet without sin),  humbled Himself, and entered this sin-cursed earth (Philippians  2:5–8). He then died on the cross, took the punishment for our sin upon Himself, and rose gloriously from the dead. His was a true rescue mission.  (For more, take a look at the best news you’ll ever read.)
> 
> If you believe in His life, sacrifice, and resurrection, then, for you, one  thing _does_ become vestigial . . . death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vestigial Organs: A Vanishing Argument
> 
> 
> Vestigial organs are supposedly useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. However, this claim requires preconceived belief and an ignorance of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org


AnswersInGenesis.
Kweationist Klowns.
Not extra-Biblical- Shoehorned Biblical
LOL
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

james bond said:


> The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision really hurt.  The creation science people should not be lumped in with ID proponents.  We'll have to see if creationists can come back with their own arguments.


I can't agree with the creationist ideas.  But, I'll say this for creationists:  most of them are willing to debate the actual merits of their ideas with facts and logical conclusions, even when I disagree with them.  That is in sharp contrast to the Darwinians on here, who immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks instead of debate.  

No doubt that there are creationists who would only respond to a Darwinist argument with "you're a sinner!" or some such.  But they have sense enough to stick with their prayer groups and not come onto a message forum on which logic and facts hold sway.  Darwinists seem to think that "everyone says that everyone says so!" is an actual debate point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> I can't agree with the creationist ideas.  But, I'll say this for creationists:  most of them are willing to debate the actual merits of their ideas with facts and logical conclusions, even when I disagree with them.  That is in sharp contrast to the Darwinians on here, who immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks instead of debate.
> 
> No doubt that there are creationists who would only respond to a Darwinist argument with "you're a sinner!" or some such.  But they have sense enough to stick with their prayer groups and not come onto a message forum on which logic and facts hold sway.  Darwinists seem to think that "everyone says that everyone says so!" is an actual debate point.


You shameless, idiotic liar.


You have been buried in sound argument and evidence, as anyone can see for themselves by perusing your copious spam threads.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You shameless, idiotic liar.
> 
> 
> You have been buried in sound argument and evidence, as anyone can see for themselves by perusing your copious spam threads.


There are no sound arguments from evolutionists.  They're all looney tunes.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ID is not my argument, but it has parts that I can support.  Let's define it first versus your evolution.
> 
> "The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. Certain biological features defy the standard Darwinian random-chance explanation, because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as evidence for a designer. There are three primary arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory: 1) irreducible complexity, 2) specified complexity, and 3) the anthropic principle.
> 
> One of the arguments for Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, is defined as “a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Simply put, life is comprised of intertwined parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning system. For example, the human eye is obviously a very useful system. Without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, a randomly mutated incomplete eye would actually be counterproductive to the survival of a species and would therefore be eliminated through the process of natural selection. An eye is not a useful system unless all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time."
> 
> I support the above and it destroys evolution right off the bat.  I don't think any evolutionists was able to explain.  Chalk up another victory for me and the creationists?


Odd that you would think a victory for fear and superstition is the humiliation suffered by the ID'iot creationer loons in the Dover trial.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> There are no sound arguments from evolutionists.  They're all looney tunes.


Sound arguments for the biological sciences are found in the facts and evidence.

What are your arguments for a flat earth?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision really hurt.  The creation science people should not be lumped in with ID proponents.  We'll have to see if creationists can come back with their own arguments.



Edwards v. Aguillard was just one more humiliation for the religious extremists and their agenda of promoting fear and ignorance.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Odd that you would think a victory for fear and superstition is the humiliation suffered by the ID'iot creationer loons in the Dover trial.


I didn't say it was a _victory in court_. ID'ers were not prepared. Their arguments are logical arguments instead of science just the the ID'er... oops the evolutionists here. Remember, I mentioned the papers the atheist scientists wrote long ago and many times. It's not REAL SCIENCE. EVILution isn't REAL SCIENCE. It's logical arguments. Otherwise, we'd have something from like what I proposed as an evo experiment as HARD SCIENCE. Miller-Urey was FAILED SCIENCE!!!

ID'ers will have to show their science, as well.  They'll have to demonstrate all of their principles and show it over time.  What about two or more irreducible items joining together?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I didn't say it was a _victory in court_. ID'ers were not prepared. Their arguments are logical arguments instead of science just the the ID'er... oops the evolutionists here. Remember, I mentioned the papers the atheist scientists wrote long ago and many times. It's not REAL SCIENCE. EVILution isn't REAL SCIENCE. It's logical arguments. Otherwise, we'd have something from like what I proposed as an evo experiment as HARD SCIENCE. Miller-Urey was FAILED SCIENCE!!!
> 
> ID'ers will have to show their science, as well.  They'll have to demonstrate all of their principles and show it over time.  What about two or more irreducible items joining together?


ID'iot creationers have consistently been humiliated in the courts. Attempting to rename Christianity with labels that just throw a burqa of phony descriptions on Christian fundamentalism have been a disaster for you folks.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ID'iot creationers have consistently been humiliated in the courts. Attempting to rename Christianity with labels that just throw a burqa of phony descriptions on Christian fundamentalism have been a disaster for you folks.



I have to admit that the creationists have bet their creationism on INTELLIGENT DESIGN in regards to court or justice system.  This is the battleground for our young minds now.  Where your evolutionary scientists have advantage there are all those papers your scientists wrote to support evolution and get continued funding.  The best way to describe it is they wrote papers "assuming" evolution and not trying to demonstrate it or anything like that.  They may have purposely left out anything to do with evolution.  Thus, the creationists have to do the same thing.  They have to play the same game.  While they support intelligent design, they do not exactly discuss ID but provide evidence for it through their papers.  I have to admit that in our justice system, we have to play the same game as evolutionists have.  Your side is ahead, obviously, in that regard.

Here's an example of a paper topic for ID (even including a Richard Dawkins' quote lol):

" Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “_The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like._” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?"









						What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? | GotQuestions.org
					

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? Does the universe and life show signs of being intentionally designed?



					www.gotquestions.org


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I have to admit that the creationists have bet their creationism on INTELLIGENT DESIGN in regards to court or justice system.  This is the battleground for our young minds now.  Where your evolutionary scientists have advantage there are all those papers your scientists wrote to support evolution and get continued funding.  The best way to describe it is they wrote papers "assuming" evolution and not trying to demonstrate it or anything like that.  They may have purposely left out anything to do with evolution.  Thus, the creationists have to do the same thing.  They have to play the same game.  While they support intelligent design, they do not exactly discuss ID but provide evidence for it through their papers.  I have to admit that in our justice system, we have to play the same game as evolutionists have.  Your side is ahead, obviously, in that regard.
> 
> Here's an example of a paper topic for ID (even including a Richard Dawkins' quote lol):
> 
> " Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “_The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like._” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? Does the universe and life show signs of being intentionally designed?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org


Maybe present a lecture series at your madrassh.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Maybe present a lecture series at your madrassh.


It's a court battle or justice system battle in order to be allowed to teach creation science in public schools.  Certainly, our children's minds and hearts are important enough to continue this battle. 

It would be better to use the Bible, but then the creationists run into the problem of it being religion and not a science book.  Evolution could be considered a religion, based on its non-scientific ideas of naturalism but it never was considered a religion.  It's too bad that religion is considered to be a weaker subject than science in educational circles.  I doubt we creationists can change this.  Thus, we're going forward with intelligent design.  Not the best situation for creationists imho.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> *I can't agree with the creationist ideas.  *...


Are you sure?

Seymour Flops said:
*"Who sent the meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?*​*Was that another co-inkie-dink?"*​*`*


----------



## Seymour Flops

james bond said:


> I have to admit that the creationists have bet their creationism on INTELLIGENT DESIGN in regards to court or justice system.  This is the battleground for our young minds now.  Where your evolutionary scientists have advantage there are all those papers your scientists wrote to support evolution and get continued funding.  The best way to describe it is they wrote papers "assuming" evolution and not trying to demonstrate it or anything like that.  They may have purposely left out anything to do with evolution.  Thus, the creationists have to do the same thing.  They have to play the same game.  While they support intelligent design, they do not exactly discuss ID but provide evidence for it through their papers.  I have to admit that in our justice system, we have to play the same game as evolutionists have.  Your side is ahead, obviously, in that regard.
> 
> Here's an example of a paper topic for ID (even including a Richard Dawkins' quote lol):
> 
> " Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “_The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like._” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? Does the universe and life show signs of being intentionally designed?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org


I'm starting to think Dawkins is a closet ID'er.  

Why else would he keep throwing out facts that prove design and disprove Darwinism?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> I'm starting to think Dawkins is a closet ID'er.
> 
> Why else would he keep throwing out facts that prove design and disprove Darwinism?


There are no facts that prove creationer design. The inability of creationerists to make any supportable argument for creationerism might have clued you in, or not.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There are no facts that prove creationer design. The inability of creationerists to make any supportable argument for creationerism might have clued you in, or not.


Some _easy_ facts. Today's monkeys and birds are the same as yesterday's monkeys and birds. The fossil records shows this and that explains why they exist today. The ability to reason like this is part of the intelligent design, but for some reason it's not on YOUR side.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Seymour Flops said:


> I'm starting to think Dawkins is a closet ID'er.
> 
> Why else would he keep throwing out facts that prove design and disprove Darwinism?


Haha, gotta turn to a fellow nutter for that garbage. Looks like you are learning from hitting brick wall after brick wall.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Some _easy_ facts. Today's monkeys and birds are the same as yesterday's monkeys and birds. The fossil records shows this and that explains why they exist today. The ability to reason like this is part of the intelligent design, but for some reason it's not on YOUR side.


Some easier facts. You don’t understand the subject.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Some easier facts. You don’t understand the subject.


Who said "There's nothing to fear but fear itself?"

Sir Francis Bacon.  I think he was referring to God's wrath and the discoveries of creation science to counter the atheist science.

Or you can find your own.  What a wacko beotch this Harriet Martineau (Unitarian or earlier Jehovah's Witness (does not believe in Jesus nor Trinity)):

"The book referred to was the British social theorist Harriet Martineau’s 1848 book _Eastern Life_, which put forward the idea that the world’s religions were evolving to become more and more abstract and that (she implied) the end-goal of society was a form of philosophic atheism."









						Who Said, ‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself’?
					

In this week’s Dispatches from The Secret Library, Dr Oliver Tearle examines the origins of a famous phrase ‘We have nothing to fear except fear itself.’ Those words – and the sentiment they convey…




					interestingliterature.com


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, gotta turn to a fellow nutter for that garbage. Looks like you are learning from hitting brick wall after brick wall.


And yet, I got proof that it is the atheists who are the nutters.  Just take a gander at this list.  

She was ahead of me, but I knew the last quoters daughter as we lived in the same neighborhood.  I never saw _him_ though except in photos.

What will be your FLW?



			Famous Atheists’ Last Words: Unbelievers, Death, Dying, & Judgment


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Who said "There's nothing to fear but fear itself?"
> 
> Sir Francis Bacon.  I think he was referring to God's wrath and the discoveries of creation science to counter the atheist science.
> 
> Or you can find your own.  What a wacko beotch this Harriet Martineau (Unitarian or earlier Jehovah's Witness (does not believe in Jesus nor Trinity)):
> 
> "The book referred to was the British social theorist Harriet Martineau’s 1848 book _Eastern Life_, which put forward the idea that the world’s religions were evolving to become more and more abstract and that (she implied) the end-goal of society was a form of philosophic atheism."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who Said, ‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself’?
> 
> 
> In this week’s Dispatches from The Secret Library, Dr Oliver Tearle examines the origins of a famous phrase ‘We have nothing to fear except fear itself.’ Those words – and the sentiment they convey…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interestingliterature.com


That was a really unhinged rant, even by your history of unhinged rants.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> That was a really unhinged rant, even by your history of unhinged rants.


I understand your NEED for the unhinged, libtard, crazy, nutty, wacktard, delirious, berserker, demented, deranged and SAF/POS type rants.  However, there is no room for it in this forum.  USMB has the Rubber Room for you.  You should leave and post there as intelligent people have reached the point of satiation laughing at your takes here in S&T forum.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I understand your NEED for the unhinged, libtard, crazy, nutty, wacktard, delirious, berserker, demented, deranged and SAF/POS type rants.  However, there is no room for it in this forum.  USMB has the Rubber Room for you.  You should leave and post there as intelligent people have reached the point of satiation laughing at your takes here in S&T forum.


The raving of a Flat Earther.


----------



## Colin norris

Freewill said:


> All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie.  Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.


Clearly you don't understand how evolution works or refuse to. 


Freewill said:


> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?


No.  It has been natural selection from the beginning. Evolution changes minute pieces very slowly and if its not suited, goodbye. 


Freewill said:


> As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.


If they didn't die, why wouldn't they be competing also? 


Freewill said:


> Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.


Not at all. Those that do not inherit changes suited to their environment, get natural selected and do not breed. 
us procreation would go against survival of the fittest. 
Christ your dumb 

 In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?

You have to be kidding. 
dont be so ignorant to think some silly god intervened. 
Procreation is natural selection from the beginning


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cetaceans (whale ancestors) that had hind limbs and chewed their food:









						Basilosaurus - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cetaceans (whale ancestors) that had hind limbs and chewed their food:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basilosaurus - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org









"According to paleontologist Barbara Stahl, the serpentine-shaped body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it clear that these archaeocetes could not have been the ancestor of modern whales.[3][4] With regard to this transition Barbara Stahl further states that Basilosaurus and its relatives do not display, even in a rudimentary way, evidences of the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the reduction and carried upwards of nasal bones and the expansion of premaxillary and maxillary elements to the rear to cover the original braincase roof.[3] Another problem is that according with National Academy of Sciences publication[5] Basilosaurus was the precursor to modern whales, one of the missing links. However many disagree of this. Among them, Dr. Lawrence Barnes, a whale evolution expert from the National History Museum who does not believe that Basilosaurus was an ancestor to modern whales because this whale lived at the same time as the modern form of whales.[6]"





__





						Basilosaurus - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
					






					creationwiki.org
				




They're NOT ancestors lol.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> "According to paleontologist Barbara Stahl, the serpentine-shaped body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it clear that these archaeocetes could not have been the ancestor of modern whales.[3][4] With regard to this transition Barbara Stahl further states that Basilosaurus and its relatives do not display, even in a rudimentary way, evidences of the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the reduction and carried upwards of nasal bones and the expansion of premaxillary and maxillary elements to the rear to cover the original braincase roof.[3] Another problem is that according with National Academy of Sciences publication[5] Basilosaurus was the precursor to modern whales, one of the missing links. However many disagree of this. Among them, Dr. Lawrence Barnes, a whale evolution expert from the National History Museum who does not believe that Basilosaurus was an ancestor to modern whales because this whale lived at the same time as the modern form of whales.[6]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basilosaurus - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creationwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're NOT ancestors lol.



Creationwiki is a joke, lol.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> of the cheek teeth make it clear that these archaeocetes could not have been the ancestor of modern whales.


Right, but cetaceans were. This is not the only ctacean with hind limbs or molars. So you didn't really make any point , there. Because you are very dumb.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, but cetaceans were. This is not the only ctacean with hind limbs or molars. So you didn't really make any point , there. Because you are very dumb.


No, I am right and made my point.  I'll win in the end.  Wikipedia is liberal and has tendency towards atheist science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Some _easy_ facts. Today's monkeys and birds are the same as yesterday's monkeys and birds. The fossil records shows this and that explains why they exist today. The ability to reason like this is part of the intelligent design, but for some reason it's not on YOUR side.


Such is why creationer ministries have no connection to science.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Such is why creationer ministries have no connection to science.


The EVIDENCE and science backs up the creation side.  It's NOT MY FAULT that evolutionists believes in lies without any evidence.  SATAN did it again to THE EVOS as he convinced them through Darwin and the atheist scientists.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The EVIDENCE and science backs up the creation side.  It's NOT MY FAULT that evolutionists believes in lies without any evidence.  SATAN did it again to THE EVOS as he convinced them through Darwin and the atheist scientists.


There is no evidence presented by ID'iot creationers.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no evidence presented by ID'iot creationers.


Intelligent people know that our creatures have excellent body designs and there is a lack of "transitional forms."









						Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday
					

If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the...




					www.icr.org


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> It has been natural selection from the beginning. Evolution changes minute pieces very slowly and if its not suited,


There's no need for evolution and long time with natural selection.  We can observe it happen.  Also, creationists came up with it BEFORE Durwood Darwin.

"According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are _all fully expressed_" in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth in 18351 (emphasis added). Unlike Darwin, however, Blyth saw natural selection as a preserving factor rather than as "a potentially liberalizing" one. According to this under-appreciated naturalist, the conserving principle was "intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species." Atypical variations, to use Eiseley's words, led to the animal's "discovery and destruction."2

Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3

Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."









						Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea
					

According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully...




					www.icr.org


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> There's no need for evolution and long time with natural selection.  We can observe it happen.  Also, creationists came up with it BEFORE Durwood Darwin.
> 
> "According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are _all fully expressed_" in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth in 18351 (emphasis added). Unlike Darwin, however, Blyth saw natural selection as a preserving factor rather than as "a potentially liberalizing" one. According to this under-appreciated naturalist, the conserving principle was "intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species." Atypical variations, to use Eiseley's words, led to the animal's "discovery and destruction."2
> 
> Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3
> 
> Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea
> 
> 
> According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org



ICR. Another term for the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ICR. Another term for the Flat Earth Society.


It shows natural selection is not part of evolution because it does not involve long time.  The evos are WRONG once again.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It shows natural selection is not part of evolution because it does not involve long time.  The evos are WRONG once again.


''... does not involve long time...'.

You Flat Earthers are hilarious.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ''... does not involve long time...'.
> 
> You Flat Earthers are hilarious.


The #1 Flat Earther here is YOU.  Nobody surpasses Flattie Hollie lol.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The #1 Flat Earther here is YOU.  Nobody surpasses Flattie Hollie lol.


Lol. It's funny watching the Flat Earthers celebrate their Flat Earth'ness, lol.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Lol. It's funny watching the Flat Earthers celebrate their Flat Earth'ness, lol.


You are TOO CREEPY with your Flat Earthness.  No one can discuss science with you here.  You should only stay in the religion forum.  Better yet, the rubber room.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You are TOO CREEPY with your Flat Earthness.  No one can discuss science with you here.  You should only stay in the religion forum.


Embrace your Flat Earth'ness. Don't be just another pick and choose Flat Earther.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *There's no need for evolution and long time with natural selection.  We can observe it happen.  Also, creationists came up with it BEFORE Durwood Darwin.*


Exactly.
We can observe evolution happening!!
No need to assign a god to it.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Exactly.
> We can observe evolution happening!!
> No need to assign a god to it.
> `


abu afak:  Soy un perdedor.

Sure.  I already established that creationist Edward Blyth discovered natural selection before Darwin -- Edward Blyth and the Theory of Natural Selection - Nature.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Intelligent people know that our creatures have excellent body designs and there is a lack of "transitional forms."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday
> 
> 
> If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org


Religious extremists know nothing of science which is why they deny transitional fossils.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Religious extremists know nothing of science which is why they deny transitional fossils.


As usual, you are WRONG and a loser.  The creationists know the most science here over the evolutionists.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> As usual, you are WRONG and a loser.  The creationists know the most science here over the evolutionists.


Creationerism is religious extremism, not science.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> So what is there evidence for, evolution or Darwin?
> 
> If there is evidence for Darwinism, please present it.


----------



## itfitzme

Freewill said:


> All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie.  Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.
> 
> here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution?  Survival of the fittest?  As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die.  Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition.  Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest.  In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?



Evolution.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> As usual, you are WRONG and a loser.  The creationists know the most science here over the evolutionists.


'Creation science' is an Oxymoron.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> 'Creation science' is an Oxymoron.
> 
> `


No, it isn't.  Creation has already happened and stopped.  The scientific evidence backs creation.  However, evolution has come along and denies it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, it isn't.  Creation has already happened and stopped.  The scientific evidence backs creation.  However, evolution has come along and denies it.


No scientific evidence "backs" magic or supernaturalism.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> No scientific evidence "backs" magic or supernaturalism.


You mean _evolution_.  No scientific evidence backs evolution.

Just look at the mistakes in this our universe evolved article.

I can see someone like abu afak falling for it, but you, too lol?

The Evolution of the Universe


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Intelligent people know that our creatures have excellent body designs and there is a lack of "transitional forms."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday
> 
> 
> If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org


Thank the gods fot that blueprint for the cancer cell.

There are many examples of transitional forms. You won't find them at the Flat Earth ICR madrassah.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Thank the gods fot that blueprint for the cancer cell.
> 
> There are many examples of transitional forms. You won't find them at the Flat Earth ICR madrassah.


You're welcome.

But you still have no transitional fossils to back evolution.  And you do not back your beliefs up of there being many examples.

Even your experts, Drs. Colin Patterson and Stephen J. Gould have admitted as much, but us creationists have to be exposed to otherwise.

"Note that Gould _et al._ were committed evolutionists; even interpreting the record through evolutionary eyes, they admitted that it was ‘extremely rare’ to find transitional forms, not that it was impossible in principle! Creationists would of course claim that there are none, except within a created kind. But even _candidates_ for transitional forms are clearly so rare that Patterson was able to refer to Gould _et al._ as saying that there were (for all practical purposes) ‘no transitional fossils’. Yet a straightforward understanding of neo-Darwinism would suggest that there were many more transitional forms than the ‘end’ forms we see today. So one would expect ‘transitional’ fossils to dominate the record."









						That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
					

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.




					creation.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> But you still have no transitional fossils to back evolution.  And you do not back your beliefs up of there being many examples.
> 
> Even your experts, Drs. Colin Patterson and Stephen J. Gould have admitted as much, but us creationists have to be exposed to otherwise.
> 
> "Note that Gould _et al._ were committed evolutionists; even interpreting the record through evolutionary eyes, they admitted that it was ‘extremely rare’ to find transitional forms, not that it was impossible in principle! Creationists would of course claim that there are none, except within a created kind. But even _candidates_ for transitional forms are clearly so rare that Patterson was able to refer to Gould _et al._ as saying that there were (for all practical purposes) ‘no transitional fossils’. Yet a straightforward understanding of neo-Darwinism would suggest that there were many more transitional forms than the ‘end’ forms we see today. So one would expect ‘transitional’ fossils to dominate the record."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
> 
> 
> Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com


One would expect hyper-religious Flat Earth’ers to deny science.

There are thousands of examples of transitional fossils.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> One would expect hyper-religious Flat Earth’ers to deny science.
> 
> There are thousands of examples of transitional fossils.


Lol.  There isn't a single transitional fossil.  You are delusional and have gone crazy.  You are looney when it comes to science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Lol.  There isn't a single transitional fossil.  You are delusional and have gone crazy.  You are looney when it comes to science.


Don't let your ignorance of science or the facts stop you from lies and deceit. 

Stick with your Flat Earth delusions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Ronald Reagan on atheism.


----------



## Hollie

Thomas Jefferson on Christianity.
“There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> Don't let your ignorance of science or the facts stop you from lies and deceit.
> 
> Stick with your Flat Earth delusions.


If there are any provide a list.


----------



## Hollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> If there are any provide a list.







__





						Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				









__





						CC200:  Transitional fossils
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				









__





						CC050:  Hominid transition
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				









__





						CC202:  Transitional fossils and direct ancestry
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				









__





						CC200.1:  Transitional fossil abundance
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				









__





						Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				









__





						Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B
					





					www.talkorigins.org


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hollie said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC200:  Transitional fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC050:  Hominid transition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC202:  Transitional fossils and direct ancestry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC200.1:  Transitional fossil abundance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org


thanks for the list.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC200:  Transitional fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC050:  Hominid transition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC202:  Transitional fossils and direct ancestry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC200.1:  Transitional fossil abundance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org


Talk origins is pseudoscience -- talk.origins - Wikipedia.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Talk origins is pseudoscience -- talk.origins - Wikipedia.



You Flat Earth'ers are a joke.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You Flat Earth'ers are a joke.


You shouldn't be braggin' about being a Flattie Hollie.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You shouldn't be braggin' about being a Flattie Hollie.


Who did that?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Who did that?


Brett J. Vickers started the archive and it became a dumping ground.  It's like here, but was unmoderated.

Put it this way.  Nobody wants to use you as a _source_.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Brett J. Vickers started the archive and it became a dumping ground.  It's like here, but was unmoderated.
> 
> Put it this way.  Nobody wants to use you as a _source_.


Yet, you offer nothing to refute science data, just silly Flat Earther musings.


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> Another Evidence of Evolution.
> Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
> One rarely mentioned but very telling.
> Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
> *An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.*
> 
> Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​[.......]​Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​​*Confirmation:*​There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....​[.......]​The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.​Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]​​*Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​​*Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​[.......]​​How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​`​


Where's woodznutz?


----------



## Clyde 154

james bond said:


> Talk origins is pseudoscience -- talk.origins - Wikipedia.


Anyone that attempts to justify the theory of evolution based upon the commonality of DNA among different species actually denies the true application of science that demonstrates that all life on earth share DNA with mankind......even up to the point of primates having up to a 98.8% commonality with human DNA.....When Science is applied it proves that simple 1.2% can make all the difference in the world.   All life on earth share a DNA signature because all of life is carbon based.

Simply because the Word of God declares that life was created from the earth (the elements common to earth) does not mean that Man and Animal are equal..........When God created life to the point that one animal was superior to another in becoming Sentient (the ability to comprehend the result of one's actions of one's own life as well as the how your decisions might effect the lives of others)............Its at creation where DNA commalities are calibrated.  

Some will attempt to have the mule push the plow and declare that Creationists have it backwards.....there is no missing link necessary to prove in accepting evolution........because evolution stims from the fact of all primates having a common ancestor (as proven by genetics and DNA)..........of course All life species have a common ancestral link.........all of life on earth is carbon based.  Then they classify man as a type of primate (the most evolved of the species.......which has a long list).

No one ever explains how DNA is added upon by mutation, why?  Because mutation is just that.........an imperfect example of an existing DNA chain, something has been taken away producing mutated examples of a perfect 100%.   Mutation can not add information it can only dilute information.

If evolution is true and we all came from a common ancestral primate........why do all these same species still exist at less than 100% of a human DNA signature?  What?  Are these lesser primates just to stupid to evolve and prove there is a law of physical science called EVOLUTION?   Every species on earth can evolve when a dormant DNA trait is activated by need of adapting to the natural surroundings .........but there has never been any evidences of any species EVOLVING (adapting itself into a completely different species......such as cat becoming a dog........a feline becoming a member of the K9 species.......or a cold blooded animals such as a reptile evolving into a warm blooded creature...etc.,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> thanks for the list.


Now comment on it. You had a lot to say, before your points were undermined.  Does being buried in examples cause you to modify your earlier stance? Your response requires more than a flip "thank you".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Anyone that attempts to justify the theory of evolution based upon the commonality of DNA among different species actually denies the true application of science that demonstrates that all life on earth share DNA with mankind......even up to the point of primates having up to a 98.8% commonality with human DNA.....When Science is applied it proves that simple 1.2% can make all the difference in the world. All life on earth share a DNA signature because all of life is carbon based


Compelling evidence of common origin, all on its own. Then add.in the other stuff we know (unlike these goofy comments -- which address genetics in a vacuum -- scientists from different fields actually communicate and share knowledge, and all the evidence is mutually supportive)...

..  and evolution easily becomes clear as a fact. Deny it all you like, just stay away from a science classroom. So you don't get laughed out of the room.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Compelling evidence of common origin, all on its own. Then add.in the other stuff we know (unlike these goofy comments -- which address genetics in a vacuum -- scientists from different fields actually communicate and share knowledge, and all the evidence is mutually supportive)...
> 
> ..  and evolution easily becomes clear as a fact. Deny it all you like, just stay away from a science classroom. So you don't get laughed out of the room.


there is no evidence of one species evolving into 2 or more entirely different species. And as I have pointed out there is no direct connection for man going back past several hundred thousand years.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> here is no evidence of one species evolving into 2 or more entirely different species.


That's a lie. We will get to that later. Back to transitional fossils.

You demanded a list, because you were too lazy to look for yourself. In a courtesy you did not deserve, someone provided a list for you.

Now, correct and modify your earlier, incorrect comments to account for this list. Like an adult.

Then we can address the lane change lie you just posted.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's a lie. We will get to that later. Back to transitional fossils.
> 
> You demanded a list, because you were too lazy to look for yourself. In a courtesy you did not deserve, someone provided a list for you.
> 
> Now, correct and modify your earlier, incorrect comments to account for this list. Like an adult.
> 
> Then we can address the lane change lie you just posted.


Sorry just because a list was provided does not mean it covers what I asked for I was being polite because an attempt was made. Like all supposed evolutionary "science" it is full pf holes and HUGE fucking guesses and assumptions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry just because a list was provided does not mean it covers what I asked for I was being polite because an attempt was made. Like all supposed evolutionary "science" it is full pf holes and HUGE fucking guesses and assumptions.


Then name some. Argue why they are so. That's how this works.

Face it, you didn't open a single one of those links and have no idea what you are talking about. You are just vomiting the first gainsaying, baby tantrum that comes to mind. It's pretty obvious. So this is a faceplant by you. The most robust scientific theory in history remains unshaken. 

Now, for your demand of evidence:

Give us an example or two of what such evidence might look like. Be as specific as a person who knows nothing about evolution or any related topic can.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then name some. Argue why they are so. That's how this works.
> 
> Face it, you didn't open a single one of those links and have no idea what you are talking about. You are just vomiting the first gainsaying, baby tantrum that comes to mind. It's pretty obvious. So this is a faceplant by you. The most robust scientific theory in history remains unshaken.
> 
> Now, for your demand of evidence:
> 
> Give us an example or two of what such evidence might look like. Be as specific as a person who knows nothing about evolution or any related topic can.


be specific and cite for us any actual species of mammal that evolved into 2 different species with actual evidence to back it up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> be specific and cite for us any actual species of mammal that evolved into 2 different species with actual evidence to back it up.


Nope. First show us you would even know evidence if you saw it. Give us an example or two of what such evidence would look like. So we know you aren't wasting our time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nope. First show us you would even know evidence if you saw it. Give us an example or two of what such evidence would look like. So we know you aren't wasting our time.


Ya I didnt think so I am right and you know it or you would trot out the evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya I didnt think so I am right and you know it or you would trot out the evidence.


That is some very embarrassing illogic. If you see a dog that has never bitten you, do you then assume it never can bite you? Of course not. If you employed this idiot troll illogic at all times, you would be functionally retarded.

So, back to exposing your childish game:

Name an example of what evidence of speciation would look like.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is some very embarrassing illogic. If you see a dog that has never bitten you, do you then assume it never can bite you? Of course not. If you employed this idiot troll illogic at all times, you would be functionally retarded.
> 
> So, back to exposing your childish game:
> 
> Name an example of what evidence of speciation would look like.


LOL Moron alert, you make a claim you support it. I am dome responding to your moronic drivel.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL Moron alert, you make a claim you support it. I am dome responding to your moronic drivel.


That's not going to help you. Obviously, given that the global scientific community is convinced, any trained monkey could produce some of the mountains of evidence that has convinced them.

An easy way to separate the frauds from honest, rational people is the question I asked you.

And it works every time, just as it just did with you. Every time.

Any High schooler with a modest education in biology could easily answer the question I asked you.

But you couldn't answer it if your life depended on it. Chiefly because you know nothing about evolution, but second because you instinctively know that any example you give will result in you beng buried in a mountain of such examples. Ad then you would look pretty stupid.

Thanks for being my assistant in this demonstration.

By the way, that's the third time you have done so.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not going to help you. Obviously, given that the global scientific community is convinced, any trained monkey could produce some of the mountains of evidence that has convinced them.
> 
> An easy way to separate the frauds from honest, rational people is the question I asked you.
> 
> And it works every time, just as it just did with you. Every time.
> 
> Any High schooler with a modest education in biology could easily answer the question I asked you.
> 
> But you couldn't answer it if your life depended on it. Chiefly because you know nothing about evolution, but second because you instinctively know that any example you give will result in you beng buried in a mountain of such examples. Ad then you would look pretty stupid.
> 
> Thanks for being my assistant in this demonstration.
> 
> By the way, that's the third time you have done so.


You couldn't explain your way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You couldn't explain your way out of a wet paper bag.


You don't actually believe that, you are just having tantrums, because you know you've been outed.


----------

