# Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

"*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the _Arizona Daily Sun_ reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there _is_ no scientific controversy."









						I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
					

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2021)

So you're blaming the school system for YOUR Ignorance
Or the politics of Indoctrinated Religious FREAKS like YOU not allowing it in those schools.
Or both?

And once again...
A "scientific theory," is a well substantiated set of ideas, NOT mere conjecture/the common usage of 'theory,' that is the STUPID or DISHONEST numero uno among Ignorant godists.

160 years and many new sciences and NONE contradict it,
and all relevant ones help confirm it. (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc, etc)

`
`
`


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> So you're blaming the school system for YOUR Ignorance
> Or the politics of Indoctrinated Religious FREAKS like YOU not allowing it in those schools.
> Or both?
> 
> ...



My, my.  I just said that schools don't teach it because it's just a hypothesis that isn't widely accepted by most Americans.  Even Darwin didn't say humans came from monkeys.

I thought it was a revelation that schools today do not teach human evolution because likely they do not know or have developed the theory as well as natural selection.

Thus, you and humans could have been created.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?


You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

I'm not sure of the numbers, yet, but it seems educators are willing to teach creation as a religion in public schools.  It would include how humans developed.  They won't consider it in science classrooms, but they may consider intelligent design for science.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> ...



This isn't about natural science.  There are plenty of threads here of creation science vs evolution.  This is about what the majority of Americans believe and it isn't human evolution, i.e. humans evolved from monkeys.  They believe in creation.  It also touches what people are willing to allow to be taught in schools such as creation as a religion.  Or ID as science.

So, in regards to books, you can use your book in evolution science classes while the Bible can be used in creation classes.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2021)

The Truth is NOT a Poll.
It's a FACT.
The less people that know facts leads to ******* society and leaders like our last
(and morons like James Bond)

`

`


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> I'm not sure of the numbers, yet, but it seems educators are willing to teach creation as a religion in public schools.  It would include how humans developed.  They won't consider it in science classrooms, but they may consider intelligent design for science.


It makes no difference what educators want or don't want when it comes to religion in public schools. It's a violation of the constitution to teach religion in the public schools.

ID'iot creationism is not science.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> 
> "*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
> Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
> ...



"_Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution_."

Was ''Olga'' not paying attention in class?


----------



## Anomalism (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> it's just a hypothesis



Evolution is not just a hypothesis you dishonest retard. It's a theory. Ignorant people like you rarely understand the difference though.


----------



## Anomalism (Feb 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> The Truth is NOT a Poll.



Say it louder for the morons in the back.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

Hollie said:


> "_Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution_."
> 
> Was ''Olga'' not paying attention in class?



I think Olga was, but human evolution was not part of the curriculum.  There is no evidence for a common ancestor since Lucy was a chimpanzee.

Which makes me ask were you taught human evolution?


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > it's just a hypothesis
> ...



I'm not ignorant one who believes in lies haha.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> The Truth is NOT a Poll.
> It's a FACT.
> The less people that know facts leads to ******* society and leaders like our last
> (and morons like James Bond)



The truth is people weren't taught human evolution.  Human evolution isn't a fact.  Even Darwin didn't say that.  Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.  That kills it right there.  And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you?  Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?


----------



## Anomalism (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> I'm not ignorant one who believes in lies haha.



You believe humans popped out of thin air. You're a weak-minded fool that needs to believe in creationism so badly that you'll go to any absurd length to do so, including blatantly ignoring reality.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> The truth is people weren't taught human evolution. * Human evolution isn't a fact.  Even Darwin didn't say that.*  Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.  That kills it right there.  And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you?  Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?


Evolution is a FACT and a Theory.

When Darwin said it the first time, it was just his systematic observation.. OF COURSE.
160 Years and tons of evidence later it is now a Fact as well as a theory. Like Gravity.

I've bumped up two refresher course you couldn't have missed but for religious blinders.

`


----------



## Michigan Swampbuck (Feb 16, 2021)

Natural selection is intelligent design. Some folks can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not ignorant one who believes in lies haha.
> ...



Humans didn't pop out of thin air.  Boy, are you ignorant.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

This is a Hollywood version (screenplay doesn't follow the Bible exactly), but it gives one an idea of how humans came to be.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is people weren't taught human evolution. * Human evolution isn't a fact.  Even Darwin didn't say that.*  Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.  That kills it right there.  And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you?  Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?
> ...



You're just repeating the biology or ToE.  Thus, it's a THEORY.  It clearly states it is a theory.  If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.  

Instead, what I am discussing is _human evolution_ which did not happen and isn't taught in schools.  Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?


----------



## fncceo (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> I'm not sure of the numbers



So ... you didn't learn math either?


----------



## fncceo (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> You're just repeating the biology or ToE.  Thus, it's a THEORY.  It clearly states it is a theory.  If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.
> 
> Instead, what I am discussing is _human evolution_ which did not happen and isn't taught in schools.  Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?



What about Encino Man?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> You're just repeating the biology or ToE. * Thus, it's a THEORY.  It clearly states it is a theory.  If it was a fact, then both sides can use it. *


Editor-in-Chief
ScientificAmerican - 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."..."*​​​



__





						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
				


​​A Scientific Theory is the Strongest Statement science can make about the Universe.​They get stronger over time and tested and confirmed more.​For evolution that's 160 years and an explosion of new sciences. None of which contradict it, and all those relevant help Confirm it.​​James Bond is a BLITHERING IDIOT.​Who cannot even discuss this topic because even after THOUSANDS of posts pointing out the above,​he still doesn't know the basic terminology of the debate, just his Religious mentally ill Indoctrinated idiocy.​He needs treatment/debriefing for his brainwashed OCD.​​`​


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 16, 2021)

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes.    And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers.  I was one myself.   I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 16, 2021)

*" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. "*

National Academy of Sciences (US) (1999). _Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences_ (2nd ed.). National Academies Press. p. 2


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You're just repeating the biology or ToE. * Thus, it's a THEORY.  It clearly states it is a theory.  If it was a fact, then both sides can use it. *
> ...



Are you BreezeWood saying the same thing over and over?  Well, I'm still waiting for the evidence besides ToE and natural selection.  OTOH, I pointed out the fake and fraudulent fossils of human evolution.  Even the embryo was faked by Haeckel.  If human evolution was true, then there should be plenty of evidence.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes.    And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.
> 
> I have known quite a few science teachers.  I was one myself.   I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.
> 
> Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.



I guess you believe in human evolution.  What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans?  I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

Do you think your students really believed it?  I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description.  I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.

I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator.  Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes.  Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion.  I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID.  All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion.  I think the creationists can live with that.  What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation.  The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics.  I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes.    And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.
> ...



I think almost all the students believed it.

As for the eye, it is an organ that evolved just like all the other organs.   There are simple eye spots on planaria that are simply sensitive to light.  There are more complex eyes that "see" with limited depth perception.   There are eyes that require something to move to be seen.   So the idea that eyes would have to originate in their exact configuration in order to work is nonsense.   It ignores the Simple Eye in arthropods (pigment pit), that is a single lens and a simple retina.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > "_Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution_."
> ...


There is ample evidence for a common ancestor to man. Your “Lucy was a chimpanzee”, comment is right from the ICR madrassah. Lucy was bipedal so not a chimpanzee.

Otherwise, if you accept the age of those fossilized remains, how do account for the timeframes with regard to a 6,000 year old planet?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Human evolution did happen and is taught in schools. The preceding will not apply to you if your school was the ICR madrassah.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Worshipping at the altar of charlatans such as Kent Hovind is a terrible idea. He has no qualifications for anything but buffoonery.





__





						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				





A.k.a. Dr. Dino

Kent Hovind needs no introduction, and plumbing the abyss of his cluelessness is probably not a hygienic enterprise, so we’ll restrict ourselves to the basics (and some examples). Hovind used to be the head of Creation Science Evangelism, a young earth creationist activist group. He also operated a small museum and amusement park known as "Dinosaur Adventure Land". In 2006, during the run-up to Hovind's trial for tax evasion, much of the park was shut down due to Hovind's refusal to secure a building permit. He was convicted on the tax evasion charges and is now serving a 10-year sentence.

Hovind has his doctorate in Christian Education from the diploma mill Patriot University. You can download his dissertation from this site (for instance); it was made public through Wikileaks and has become quite popular, so the server is often overloaded. It’s opening sentence, already established as a classic, is “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind”. In it he claims that “_n the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis,” and goes on to display his deep understanding and erudite knowledge of modern biology by following it with “[c]hapter nine discusses the “best evidence” evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archeopteryx” and “I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history”, not to mention “The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order.” (More here, and here, and last but not least here)

Point is, Hovind views the manufactroversy between creation and evolution as an epic battle between God and his former chorus director, Satan. Evolution, you see, has been with us from the start: “When the people left the Tower of Babel, they took their false religion of evolution with them.” In fact, most opposition to Christendom concerns evolution: “the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching.”

Oh yes, Hovind believes the earth is 6000 years old, that the flood created Gran Canyon and that humans walked with dinosaurs. In fact Ken Ham, who shares these beliefs, has taken Hovind to task by creating a list of arguments against evolution a creationist should not use. They actually got into a dispute over that, since Hovind recognized several of his own trump arguments on Ham’s list. And that is Ken Ham. Of creation museum fame. When you are too ignorant of science for Ken Ham, then you are, well, rather ignorant. PZ Myers has attended one of his talks, and wasn’t particularly impressed.

So Hovind rejects the age of the earth, the field of astronomy, the entire field of geology, and has no trace of a clue about physics and/or radiometric dating. In fact, he is utterly ignorant of anything in science, has no time for evidence and is unmoved by facts. He doesn’t seem to mind, though. One famous example (among numberless) is his arguments against 'evolution' by trying to discredit the Big Bang, telling us that Big Bang violates the conservation of angular momentum because if everything came from a tiny spinning dot that blew up then everything would spin in the same direction; since some planets and moons in our solar system exhibit retrograde motion/rotation; this disproves the Big Bang, so evolution is impossible.

Other examples of his claims are that the Trail of Tears (1838) was a result of Darwin's Theory of Evolution (1859), that vaccinations are from Satan, that the New World Order was behind the Oklahoma bombings, that UFOs are “satanically owned and operated”, and that his commercial enterprises needn't file with the IRS in anyway or abide by legally issued warrants from same – even as a tax free organization in the unlikely event they qualify. With respect to this, Hovind claimed that as a minister of God everything he owns belongs to The Lord and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he received for doing The Lord's Work (the judge in the case called his arguments “patently absurd”).

Hovind is well known for his "$250,000 Challenge", in which he states that he will pay $250,000 to anyone that can prove evolution. The conditions for “proof” are, well, Hovind’s own, and he has made it quite clear that it is logically impossible to meet his criteria (more here, and here).

An extremely fine resource on Hovind's studies can be found here. A nice, short summary can be found here. Note also this.

Kent has also lent his name to the Hovind, a unit of measurement which evaluates statements for kookery. Roughly, 0 is the score for a scientifically sound statement, 100 is for a lie that isn't even wrong. You can test your own Hovind here.

There are actually groups campaigning for Hovind’s release, such as this one (lead by one Adrienne Gilbert). Their main tactic seems to be praying, however, so they may be relatively harmless (here is another such call to prayer from the criminally insane Shelleytherepublican (Tristan Shuddery)).

*Diagnosis: Hovind is a riot of insanity, ignorance, crackpottery, delusion, lunacy and idiocy. Thus, he has had rather far-reaching influence. His jail-time may have halted his career, and he seems to have grown even more unhinged during his time in prison. What happens when he is let out in 2015 will be interesting.*_


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.
> ...



Huh, this is the best.  Where is the common ancestor one, hmmm?  If I said humans did not come from chimpanzees, then you guys would be all over me for not knowing about human evolution.  Can you just fark yourself now?


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Then why isn't human evolution taught more widely today?  Darwin wrote about it in his second book, but it is considered racist.  Darwin's ideas also led to eugenics (fake science) and the Holocaust.

With the eye, it isn't just limited to human eyes.  Animals have different eyes.  For example, my dogs have night vision in low light.  Other jungle animals and birds all have different eyes.  With this wide variety of eyes, one can't just simply explain it as "an organ that evolved like all other organs."  We can say the same for the ear as we have much different hearing for humans and animals.  The complexity of the eye and ear is evidence for creation.

What did Darwin say about the eye and ear?


----------



## DrLove (Feb 17, 2021)

I was taught all about Darwinisn as well as creationism as a school kid in 60's -early 80's in SoCal. My daughter (now 25) wasn't though. Idaho schools taught her nothing either about creationism or evolution. Today, you might get it in a college philosophy, eastern or western religion class but todays K-12 teachers are gun shy. They fear that if they teach either, kooky parents will defend on them with pitch forks and torches. And negotiating state educational mandates is incredibly tricky. It's a shame.


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There is ample evidence for a common ancestor to man. Your “Lucy was a chimpanzee”, comment is right from the ICR madrassah.



No, there isn't ample.  I just gave you the evidence of the fraud.  Lucy was a composite of different fossils, i.e. animals.  Most likely, it was some type of chimpanzee.  If your hypothesis was true, then there should be more Lucy's and in-between changes.  What do the his Finch beaks found in the Galapagos show?  Did Darwin really draw Finch beaks?






This is what we get (I don't think he drew these either) and it's considered racist.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There is ample evidence for a common ancestor to man. Your “Lucy was a chimpanzee”, comment is right from the ICR madrassah.
> ...


There is ample evidence. You will deny it because the evidence for human evolution is in direct contradiction to your fundamentalist religious beliefs. You shouldn’t expect others who don’t share your fundamentalist religious to simply ignore the vast evidence for human evolution.

Using the rascist™ slogan as a way to support you religious beliefs is retrograde and dishonest.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Yes, we can, in fact, say it is an organ that evolved like all the other organs.     And small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on more readily.

A dog with better night vision would be a better predator.   Therefore, it would eat better, be stronger, and attract more mates.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Can you just fark yourself now?



If I could do that, I wouldn't waste my time trying to educate farm animals.


----------



## surada (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The Bible was never intended as a science or history book. Why teach morality tales as science?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > The Truth is NOT a Poll.
> ...


.


james bond said:


> there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.


.
the metaphysical may produce an offspring developed over may generations as a code before employing the final product -
.




.
as the above example of a being transforming themselves into a new physiological creature without the evidence the transformation took place. the same for how a human may have come into being in a single instance and that of other species. 

parent to new species in a single transformation where there is no physical evidence provided as the process is unique and timely, programed over decades in the making. 
.
.
no valid evidence for a common ancestor - parent to new species in a single transformation.


wakeup bond and there are other more obvious flaws to the desert religions worth valid consideration over this one.


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What I was looking for was what you explained of simple going to more complex.  We had the finch beaks of the Galapalagos which I doubt Darwin drew.  Honestly, I see that drawing everywhere, but do not know if Darwin actually was able to draw like that.

Anyway, you describe the small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on as those which receive it will better survive.  Those which don't will likely die.  I believe that.  There is something else that you are leaving out.  What do you think that is?  

None of these animals, including humans, went from simple to complex when it came to their eyes and ears.  They already had this vision or hearing.  Otherwise, we would have those drawings.

Furthermore, we just had a Lucy and it takes two to tango.  None of what happened afterward is explained.


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Can you just fark yourself now?
> ...



But how could a chimpanzee become a human?  That isn't what the mysterious common ancestor is.  I was looking for that explanation.  If Lucy or this common ancestor existed, then would we have more information on it?  Wouldn't I expect to see its chromosomes?

Again, if I said that humans came from chimpanzees, then I'd be ripped to shreds but that's what you did.  What has a chimpanzee have to do with humans?  Wasn't that my argument for Lucy not being a common ancestor?  I like to see some continuity from the evolutionists.

Instead, can you admit that you have not chromosome chart for a common ancestor?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?



Am I to understand you're claiming that 85 - 90% of Americans don't believe in evolution?


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

surada said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...



You're right, the Bible is not a science book but it is a history book.  However, we find science backs up the Bible.  Anyway, I don't want to argue about teaching the Bible and creation science as _science_.  I admit that is a dead curriculum.  I don't think ID can be taught as science either as it was demonstrated to not be scientific.  However, the Bible and creation science can be taught as religion in public schools.  I think that is a worthy pursuit and have put some wheels in motion outside this forum.


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> ...



Polls show 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God or a higher spiritual being.  60% of Americans believe in evolution.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Am I to understand you're claiming that 85 - 90% of Americans don't believe in evolution?
> ...



So 85 - 90% of Americans do not reject evolution then.  Glad we cleared that up


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out



there are not two sides on this

there is science and there is Trumpist lunacy


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Polls show 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God or a higher spiritual being.



There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.

In fact, understanding just how complex our Universe really is gives most of us a greater appreciation of the power that set it all into motion.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Polls show 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God or a higher spiritual being.



scary to be human, i agree

fuckin moronic species


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.



true, but it sure as hell  is not reasonable to  believe both and it's also highly contradictory


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


>



I recognize these guys, they were all at the Trump rally.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

noonereal said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.
> ...



How so?


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> noonereal said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



dude, please

i am not gonna play this stupid game

I'll put you down as part of the moronic majority.

oh, and God Bless you


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

noonereal said:


> fuckin moronic species



In fact, Humans are a magnificent species, the culmination of more than a Billion years of evolution and they may, some day, turn out to be one of the per-eminent species in our Galaxy.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> noonereal said:
> 
> 
> > fuckin moronic species
> ...



I swear, I just burst into spontaneous laughter reading this.

Dude, we are a failed species.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

noonereal said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > noonereal said:
> ...



It's not a game at all. 

We can believe that G-d created each creature on Earth by hand, even the billion who has subsequently gone extinct OR we can believe that the same G-d, with a thorough knowledge of molecular biology, put events into place nearly 14 Billion years ago that has led to where we are now.

And, because the mind of G-d is ineffable, we don't know where our Universe will end up.  Only G-d knows, and he doesn't appear to be telling.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

noonereal said:


> Dude, we are a failed species.



Don't judge the rest of us by your failed life...


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Yes, higher animals all have complex eyes.   That does not change the fact there is a known progression from simple eye spots to complex eyes.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> noonereal said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



honest, I laughed out loud again. This is moronic shit. God knows I speak the truth.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> higher animals all have complex eyes.



Not everyone can see with their complex eyes.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> noonereal said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, we are a failed species.
> ...



I have windows, I see what time it is. 

Listen, you are to fear filled to accept your insignificant, I get that. So babble all you like, you need it.

Say hello to God for me, peace.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

noonereal said:


> I laughed out loud again



Simple minds are easily amused.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 17, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> ...



Why bother? there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact, so you should take a science course and learn about empirical methodologies before spamming threads with cult rubbish.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Teaching the Bible and creationism in public schools would mean teaching all the other religions as well.  Otherwise you would have selected a specific religion for gov't schools.  And that is expressly forbidden.

Also, there are a number of things in the Bible that are not backed up by science.    Noah's Flood, God through Joshua stopping the sun in the sky, and other specifics are not backed by science.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

noonereal said:


> Listen, you are to fear filled to accept your insignificant...



Listen, you are *too *fear filled to accept *you're *insignificant...

Why is it that those most filled with their own sense of superior intellectual ability have the worst spelling and grammar?


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Simple minds are easily amused.



I admit it. You, my subspecies are not secure enough to do the same. 

Peace loser


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 17, 2021)

Anybody who thinks they have proof, go collect $10 million from the Royal Society.









						Evolution 2.0
					

A $10 million Prize for Origin of Life and AI, announced at London's Royal Society with judges from Harvard, Oxford and MIT.




					evo2.org
				





*January 13, 2020*


(CHICAGO, Illinois) – An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt. 


This $10 million challenge, the _Evolution 2.0 Prize _can be found at Evolution 2.0 AI & Origin of Life Challenge, $10M Prize | HeroX_._


The new international competition is intended to speed breakthroughs around the still unknown process of cell communication that organizers predict can turn off cancer, allow robots to think for themselves and even create new plant life to combat climate change.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact



It's merely the best explanation we have that fits the existing data and observations.   With additional data and observations, the the explanation will change.

That is how science works.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> noonereal said:
> 
> 
> > Listen, you are to fear filled to accept your insignificant...
> ...



Lot's of reasons for this. First you must understand that there are many kinds of intelligence. (plus this is a message board, most people don't proof what they write. After that we can break it down further into personality types and how that affects us in grammar.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 17, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure of the numbers, yet, but it seems educators are willing to teach creation as a religion in public schools.  It would include how humans developed.  They won't consider it in science classrooms, but they may consider intelligent design for science.
> ...



No, it's not at all a violation of the Constitution, and all school districts in the U.S. are independent and locally operated; they can decide on any curriculum they want. It is the Fed who is barred from interfering with religious speech, not the other way around.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact
> ...



Some of the 'Intelligent design' arguments are just as valid as science, so there is no reason to favor one over the other in school curriculum; in fact it should be required, unless you want to ban both. Neither are factual at this point.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 17, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Teaching the Bible and creationism in public schools would mean teaching all the other religions as well.  Otherwise you would have selected a specific religion for gov't schools.  And that is expressly forbidden.



Not true. Some would certainly like for everybody to believe that, though.



> Also, there are a number of things in the Bible that are not backed up by science.    Noah's Flood, God through Joshua stopping the sun in the sky, and other specifics are not backed by science.



So what? Evolution has no scientific backing either.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 17, 2021)

Re the 'mythical' bible stories and 'science':





__





						A Closer Look at Genesis 1
					

Two groups of people insist that Genesis and modern interpretations of science are incompatible: Secularists and Young Earth Creationists. These two camps have done great damage to the credibility of scripture. But today I would like to suggest to you that there's a Third Way.  A modern literal...




					evo2.org
				




" *A modern literal interpretation of Genesis 1 matches modern cosmology, geology and the fossil record… exactly.* "


...


*If we had to make obtuse, complex assumptions in order to make this fit, we would have a serious problem. But our assumptions are simple, even elegant. This poetic 3500 year old text matches modern science exactly.


As little as 100 years ago, the prevailing scientific view disagreed with Genesis 1 (the “steady state” theory of the universe was in vogue). Genesis produced a testable hypothesis. Since then, astronomy, geology and biology have shown Genesis was right and the science of the time was wrong.


No other ancient text, scripture or religious tradition has a creation story that even comes close to Genesis in its accuracy. The Jewish scriptures compete admirably in the marketplace of ideas in the 21st century.*



Seems those ancient Jews weren't nearly as stupid as modern Dawkins fans are; a very intuitive set of intellectuals, in fact.

Compared to Dawkins and his 'Happy Accident' rubbish, it's more sophisticated by far.

So, how does science prove 'Happy', anyway?


----------



## fncceo (Feb 17, 2021)

noonereal said:


> most people don't proof what they write



If you have to proof-read to find basic spelling mistakes, that says more about you than you probably want revealed. 

I get that Nihilism sounds very profound in a dorm room bull session, after the third Zima.  But, to the rest of us, it's just self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual, ineffectual whining.

Like spending a night out with Holden Caulfield.


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact
> ...



That's not how science works.  Are you friggin' stupid?  Yes you are you chimpanzee.

You admitted Lucy was a chimpanzee you monkey faced idiot.  What were your parents baboons haha?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> noonereal said:
> 
> 
> > fuckin moronic species
> ...


.


fncceo said:


> In fact, Humans are a magnificent species, the culmination of more than a Billion years of evolution and they may, some day, turn out to be one of the per-eminent species in our Galaxy.


.
each physiology has a distinct spiritual content for which an attempt to categorize is an exercise of futility.

the desert religions have a pitiful history, their religious concepts -
.



.
an example of their magnificence - and by the way, superman ...
.



.
meet covid, without technology the microspeck would be running you right into extinction.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > DudleySmith said:
> ...


 No, the ID’iot creation arguments are not just as valid as science.









						Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
					

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.




					ncse.ngo
				




ID’iot creation arguments are nothing more than appeals to supernaturalism  under a burqa of fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Re the 'mythical' bible stories and 'science':
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*" A modern literal interpretation of Genesis 1 matches modern cosmology, geology and the fossil record… exactly. "*

That’s so silly. The earth isn’t flat, the planet is more than 6,000 years old and the fossil record refutes a global flood just a few thousand years ago.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 18, 2021)

BreezeWood said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > noonereal said:
> ...



You don't speak English?


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 18, 2021)

.


Human Evolution is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ... ​
.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 18, 2021)

fncceo said:


> If you have to proof-read to find basic spelling mistakes, that says more about you than you probably want revealed.



I prefer people who are smart over people who are educated. They bring far more value to the table.




fncceo said:


> it's just self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual,



I think a place for such contemplation exists before university. I can recall at 15 having these discussions in the back of the bus on my way to and from prep school. 
All those in these pseudo-intellectual conversations went on to do something meaningful in life. It was the kids who had no such intellectual curiosity that have added little.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 18, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> 
> Human Evolution is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ... ​
> .



and it can also be said, creationism is   taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ...


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 18, 2021)

noonereal said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



.

It could be said that chocolate donuts taste better than chocolate ice cream ... And it still won't make a difference ... ​

.


----------



## noonereal (Feb 18, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> noonereal said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



deplorables, you can't live with them, you can't get rid of them. It's a problem.


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 18, 2021)

noonereal said:


> deplorables, you can't live with them, you can't get rid of them. It's a problem.


.

You probably have a lot of problems ... Your insecurities do more to create them, and disallow your ability to evolve ... ​
.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 18, 2021)

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity.    Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 18, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity.    Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.



.

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...  ​
.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Is there some reason why you believe that humans actually did “come from chimpanzees”?


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity.    Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.



Where am I attacking science?  I thought I was stating a FACT that human evolution isn't taught in schools.







You were one of the few who learned it.  It makes me wonder if you learned about the fraud that was presented for the common ancestor and Haeckel -- Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List | Evolution News  Why such fraud in science?  This is why we are discussing real vs fake science.  Anyway, I admitted the creationists lost trying to get creation science back into science programs like it used to belong.  The best is teaching it as religion in public schools.  Nothing wrong with that.  I even said ID (which I do not advocate) may not pass muster as science, either.

I'm not one of those who whine about people attacking Christianity, but defend it when I can.

What got to me in this thread to the core was fncceo comical science of:






How is it different from what I presented as argument, i.e. the common ancestor Lucy was a chimp.






What made me go into a rage against him is I caught him in a lie and the hypocrisy that leftists present.  I would be skewered if I said humans didn't come from monkeys (chimpanzee).  They would point out it was a mysterious common ancestor.  That's why I am trying to find out more information about this common ancestor.  So far, no evidence.  Will you admit there is no evidence for a common ancestor (besides the controversial fossil claimed to be "it.")?

We haven't even got to bipedalism.  Is there a chromosome for that?  You should be able to answer that.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


That’s exactly right. There is no evidence that literally establishes any thing in science as an absolute fact. You’ve just defined a theory. Absolutely no form of problem solving can do that. It’s why science ALWAYS includes a level of certainty based upon a statistical  inference. That is much more reliable then guess. Science uses consensus then developers a level of certainty from it.

Anyone who has a better way of providing understanding in problem solving has failed since the scientific method was developed and i improved   upon. I highly recommend you research the “ scientific method” as well.  what's your alternative to consensus of the conclusions by the majority of the smartest and most dedicated people doing the research ? Is an alternate....just listening  to one guys  opinion over every research facility in the world ?


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


All science is dealt with the same way, not just natural science.  Science text books are submitted to the appropriate education facilities who do the research on their  authenticity and agreement among the entire scientific community. If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity.    Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.
> ...


human evolution is taught as a scientific theory. It’s based upon the scientific method. Until someone has an idea how science works, it’s impossible  to understand where they are coming from. It would be good if you gave an alternative to science that every major Corp  in the world that uses evolution would accept. They use it to develope products. Bibles have never workEd for that use. Find something better.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


What a particular number of Americans believe , doesn’t make it true. Going to the bar and taking a poll on how many believe in human evolution is a sad commentary on how you interview for a job at food plant that uses evolution to develope thier products. You get a formal education with an a degree from an accredited school. That tells all the people who are going to pay you, you know something about making their product . Bible studies are not accredited for these efforts. you. Want to preach about the Bible, go for it. But it’s. Not what the vast  majority  of businesses both small and large, want to hear.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
> and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...



I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments.  What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> All science is dealt with the same way, not just natural science. Science text books are submitted to the appropriate education facilities who do the research on their authenticity and agreement among the entire scientific community. If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation.



>>If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it.  There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation. <<

That is interesting.  Which evolution theory do they use?  Can you provide a few examples?

No, teaching creation science that was accredited in the past has been replaced by evolution.  They replaced the truth for a lie.  Anyway, I accepted that and have gotten the wheels rolling to see if it will be taught in schools as religion.



Dagosa said:


> What a particular number of Americans believe , doesn’t make it true.



So is taking a poll of atheist scientists and claiming consensus.  It wasn't like that in the past (both sides were involved before ToE).  They exchanged the truth for a lie.


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
> ...



My comment was in the Present Tense, talking about what someone could do with what they have learned about Human Evolution.
It serves no purpose to argue about it ... It's not going to accomplish anything.

The only thing the argument provides, is the opportunity for people to look towards others in their attempts to validate their beliefs, and manage their own insecurities.

.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
> ...


So what’s your point. Science adds understanding. It doesn’t claim to give you facts  down to quantum theory level that very fewer scientist get themselves. But, there is no other method that comes as close or is as accurate as the agreed upon science Developed by all the accredited universities and research facilities. Anyone who wants to disagree with the most successful method of problem  solving    Needs to first understand it themselves.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > All science is dealt with the same way, not just natural science. Science text books are submitted to the appropriate education facilities who do the research on their authenticity and agreement among the entire scientific community. If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation.
> ...


This isnt a science class, this is a discussion. Do the research yourself to answer your questions. . Behavioral science says, that will be more meaningful to you.
Atheism discussion is just a diversion. Catholics believe  in science and evolution and the also use the Bible in their own community. Many other religions are not science deniers or non users of evolution. So, throwing atheism in there is invalid.  Unless you refuse to use any product developed by science, it doesn’t make sense to me to talk about atheism or any religious reference while discussing science.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Help me. Is anything in a Christian Bible backed up by science ? There is no evidence in the Bible itself.....
imo, the two don’t mix. science deals with “ earthly problem” solving. Religion deals with something that as yet, there is no evidence of.  But we’re open to anything.


----------



## surada (Feb 18, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...



I visited a science museum in Saudi Arabia.. It had interactive  stations about tectonic  plates, the Eastward tilting of the peninsula, the rift that runs up the Red Sea to the Dead Sea, fossil water.. Really well done. At each station was a small brass plaque with a corresponding creation verse from the Koran. I was struck by the lack of conflict between science and religion. I wonder if we only have this conflict in the US with fundamentalists who take Genesis literally.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 18, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You’re 85 to 90 percent number must be a question. It’s no where near.
Really, I guess in the mind of deniers, I’m one of the gullible people who doesn’t believed in David Koresh type conspiracies and relies on the advice of real science institutes and not Religious fanatics when it comes to my health and well being. Sorry, I’m getting a covid shot developed by those dastardly theory of evolution principles rather then just, pray to god I don’t  get sick and die. Call me old fashion for trusting educated people representing medical science over charlatans.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 18, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...



What are you babbling about? What '85 to 90% number? lol Covid vaccines don't have squat to do with evolution; vaccines have been used since the 18th century in the U.S. They were based on trial and error empirical methodologies,  not idiots who still don't understand what Darwin believed and have no clue as to what an empirical chain of evidence is.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 18, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity.    Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.



Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic. 

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



That's just a nonsensical comment after what was presented.  Anyway, I hope you do well in hell .  I'm sick of weirdos saying bad things about Christianity.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
> ...


You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

*Claim CB301:*



			CB301:  Eye complexity
		

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

*Source:*
Brown, Walt, 1995. _In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood_. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. _The Neck of the Giraffe_, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

*Response:*

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the _Ciona_ βγ-crystallin gene. _Ciona_ is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. _Ciona_'s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''. 

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> This isnt a science class, this is a discussion. Do the research yourself to answer your questions. . Behavioral science says, that will be more meaningful to you.
> Atheism discussion is just a diversion. Catholics believe in science and evolution and the also use the Bible in their own community. Many other religions are not science deniers or non users of evolution. So, throwing atheism in there is invalid. Unless you refuse to use any product developed by science, it doesn’t make sense to me to talk about atheism or any religious reference while discussing science.



Haha.  Okay, I'll just say you're babbling and won't answer my question.



Dagosa said:


> Help me. Is anything in a Christian Bible backed up by science ? There is no evidence in the Bible itself.....
> imo, the two don’t mix. science deals with “ earthly problem” solving. Religion deals with something that as yet, there is no evidence of. But we’re open to anything.



The scientific method backed up the chicken came before the egg.  Dr. Louis Pasteur proved there is no abiogenesis (called spontaneous generation earlier).  We have beauty and complexity in the universe or a kind of order.  I just presented the complexity of the human eye and ear.  The start of space and time can be explained by KCA.  We have all the energy necessary in the universe with the the creation of light or the electromagnetic spectrum.  We have the separation of day and night into two 12-hr periods or one 24-hr period.  We have how animals and humans have two sexes.  While the supernatural has infinity, the natural does not.  Physics and its laws of thermodynamics show it is not possible (called potential infinity and actual infinity).  Much, much, much more, but I'll stop here since you do not answer my questions.  Ho hum.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 18, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



lol yeah they're not as 'sophisticated' as handwaves such as 'punctuated equilibrium', AKA 'evolution by Jerks', and other loony excuses for zero evidence. Good points, if you're in an asylum trying to get extra pudding in the cafeteria.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Christianity isn't necessarily bad, it just tends to suffer terribly from Christians.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> 
> "*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
> Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
> ...


Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



There are no intermediate stages.  Stop believing in fairy tales.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> ...



Your views are ridiculous.  Ever heard of specialization?  I'm a taxpayer.  Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country.  I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I have kids in the school system and I find that the teachings are archaic and don't help very much in the real world sans maybe a foreign language they learn. How often do you use calculus or frog dissection knowledge. You can look up historical data on the Internet. Schools are good for teaching social skills, study habits, responsibility and such but to me the parents are responsible for 80% of knowledge a child receives. I am a father of two girls, 11 & 13. I am also a taxpayer. It is OK for us to disagree.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 18, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...


Will you get your shot before Rick Manning?


----------



## surada (Feb 18, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity.    Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.
> ...



I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Of course there are intermediate stages. Most biological organisms are in some form of intermediate stage of evolution. That is because external / environmental pressures change over time. That is why it is common for species to have imprecise defining characteristics because evolution is ongoing. Creationers want to define biology in terms of “kinds” that were supernaturally created. This implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of “kind” or species. Since there is not, ID’iot creationism, not evolutionary theory has a problem with a supportable argument.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Just guessing here, but I’m guessing your understanding of science is as ‘unsophisticated’ as most religious fundamentalists.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



Yes, let's agree to disagree.  I've used calculus here as well a few times in a past job.  I never used frog dissection, but it's to become familiar with how animals work.  I think some kids will be interested and could become a vet or biologist.  One has to have some idea of history.  Most kids don't have interest in it because they're young.  It's more for older adults or those interested in it.  I'm more interested in history from the Bible as well as websites.  What education does is open the world to people.  It gave me a good life and I retired early.  My kids are grown now and are finishing up college.  If they bring me a calculus problem, then I think I can help them with it, but will be rusty.  We may see the same things, but think differently about it.  That's the purpose of a higher education in my opinion.  We learned how to sharpen our interests and how to think for oneself.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

surada said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself.  

There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism.  There are no monkeys that are bipedal.  I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee.  I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.


----------



## surada (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > DudleySmith said:
> ...



You can find one of those new Christian private schools for your children. They are pretty inexpensive. They will teach creationism, fundamentalism and the Bible as History and Science.. with lots of Scofield and Hal Lindsey thrown in. I suppose you do have the right to keep them ignorant.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



There are no intermediate fossils.  Let's stick to human evolution.  Creation science believes in natural selection as something God created.  It is natural for animals to prey upon each other and the environment plays a part in such that weaker traits do not get passed on.  The stronger animals and traits survive and pass their genes on.  However, with humans, this doesn't appear to happen.  As a whole, we appear to be getting weaker and dying earlier.

(Satan has the power of death, remember?)


----------



## surada (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Go  back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2021)

surada said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



Who are you to tell me what to do?  You are such a little man.  Anyway, I went to Catholic private school and later found out what they teach is different from Christianity.  However, I believed in there was a God because I felt and learned about the beauty and complexity of nature.  Yet, I got a well rounded education for my early years.  So what did your private school do for you?



surada said:


> Go back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?



At least, you present something.  I'll have to refresh my memory on that.  

As for your question, why would I be an expert on something that is a lie?  It's like this.  One could learn about human evolution, learn it to pass the subject, as well as use materials presented and be able to figure out a problem using what it teaches.  However, one does not have to believe in it.  There is no common ancestor.  Lucy was a chimp.  Moreover, all of the human skulls found reflect those of modern humans and deformities.  Most who believe in it and are scientists are atheist scientists.  Science changes, but I don't think evolution will ever become real.  It's like we have potential reality and actual reality.  We still have no monkeys that are bipedal.  The evolutionary timelines are named after locations, but was made to represent time.  Location would show just where the poor creature died.  No life from non-life or primordial soup (science disproved this).  No intelligent aliens; Not even an microbe.  My question to you is why not if human evolution?  You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true.  We had the adult chicken before the egg.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 18, 2021)

surada said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I agree, as long as they keep the 'evolution is fact' nonsense out of schools without any rebutting alternate opinions.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 18, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...



You still don't understand empiricism. Your recommendation  are something you haven't done yourself. 'Consensus' isn't proof, and as for 'the smartest and most dedicated people doing research' odds are over a third of them used fake data in their doctoral theses and over half of them suffer from a mental illness, as found in studies by other 'smartest and most dedicated people'. Also, the 'smartest and most dedicated' are easily led to stupid lies and beliefs, as pointed out in this article:


*The myth of the flat Earth, or the flat earth error, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat rather than spherical.[1][2]

The earliest clear documentation of the idea of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). The belief was widespread in the Greek world when Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of Earth around 240 BC. This knowledge spread with Greek influence such that during the Early Middle Ages (~600–1000 AD), most European and Middle Eastern scholars espoused Earth's sphericity.[3] Belief in a flat Earth among educated Europeans was almost nonexistent from the Late Middle Ages onward, though fanciful depictions appear in art, such as the exterior panels of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[4]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[6]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[2][7][8]*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1993-8









						Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So much for scientists always telling the truth; scientists will lie about anything to anyone, if it suits their personal agendas, helps get them paid for selling toothpaste or pills, whatever, so please, don't be dumb and claim they're objective. The hilarious thing about the better ID theories is there is evidence for them while there is still zero evidence for evolution.

Feel free to collect your $10 million with all that proof.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


There are a great many examples of intermediate fossils. Not having a science vocabulary, you might want to understand some common terms and definitions.

If you would like more, raise your hand and ask.





__





						CC050:  Hominid transition
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				




There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include
_Australopithecus afarensis_, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
_Australopithecus africanus_ (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than _A. afarensis_, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
_Homo habilis_ (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
_Homo erectus_ (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early _H. erectus_ and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene _Homo sapiens_ which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).


Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).


There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).






__





						Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				







			Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
		







__





						CC202:  Transitional fossils and direct ancestry
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				





“Satan” has no power of death. You may choose to frighten and intimidate children with that nonsense but don’t bring your pathology into the grown up room.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > DudleySmith said:
> ...



Biological evolution is a fact. What alternate opinion is there?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Skills like public speaking, MS Office...Excel, Word and PowerPoint, negotiation, stats, how to calculate a mortgage or car payment, etc. are much more valuable skills.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


.


james bond said:


> You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true.


.
what exactly does your genesis say that does not correspond to the evolution of physiology and its spiritual content - that can be corroborated by a source other than your single 4th century christian bible. for which does correspond to the religion of antiquity and its simple objective as the guiding lite the manifestation of evolution has maintained from the beginning to the present time. purity in triumph the price for enduring change. metaphysically.


----------



## Crepitus (Feb 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> 
> "*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
> Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
> ...


Highschool in texas.

Well there, as they say, is your problem.


----------



## surada (Feb 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Do you believe that people lived hundreds of years?


----------



## james bond (Feb 19, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You don't provide what evidence they are using to make its points, but your Talk.Origins points are not true.

*CreationWiki response:

Note:* The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)



> 1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.


This is not true. This claim is based mainly on a comparison of skulls, most of which are just incomplete fragments. Even those that are nearly complete are broken into pieces and have had to be reassembled. This has allowed evolutionary presuppositions to get in the way. When these fossils are evaluated without assuming evolution, the alleged smooth transition goes away.

Evolutionists place a large emphasis on cranial capacity (brain size) and if that is the primary comparison then there is no solid gap, but that is not surprising since living gorillas can have a cranial capacity as high as 752cc and living humans go as low as 1100cc.[1] This leaves a gap of only 348cc difference, so it would not take much more variation on both sides for them to meet.

It further needs to be noted that there is more to the line between ape and human than cranial capacity or even skull morphology. There are numerous other skeletal differences that do not show up when all one has is a skull.



> Intermediate fossils include
> 
> _Australopithecus afarensis_, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.


The description of _Australopithecus afarensis_ having more human-like teeth than a chimpanzee is a little like saying a station wagon is more truck like than a sedan. The fact is that _Australopithecus afarensis_ teeth were still ape-like.

The claim that _Australopithecus afarensis_ was bipedal is out of date. A study of their wrist showed that they had the same wrist anatomy as knuckle-walking apes. Furthermore, their skeletal anatomy showed that they walked with a stooped gait, similar to knuckle-walking chimps. This shows that,rather than being bipedal, _Australopithecus afarensis_ was a knuckle-walker.


See: Catchpoole, D., 2000. New Evidence: Lucy was a Knuckle-Walker. _CMI_, Feb. 11, 2006. Accessed: Sep. 5, 2020.



> _Australopithecus africanus_ (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than _A. afarensis_, and its teeth yet more humanlike.


The brain size of _Africanus_ is within the upper limits of a chimpanzee. The only way the teeth of _africanus_ teeth seem to be more human-like than those of _afarensis_ is that _africanus_ had smaller canine teeth and the back top teeth were farther apart. Otherwise the teeth of both have the same size and shape.



> _Homo habilis_ (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.


The comparison of _Homo habilis_ to australopithecines is accurate since all indications are that the best _Homo habilis_ fossils are australopithecines and not the same species. As for the tools associated with _Homo habilis_, it turns out that they are not associated with _Homo habilis_ fossils but have simply been "dated" to the alleged time frame of _habilis_. Furthermore, none of the reasonably complete _Homo habilis_ skulls have a cranial capacity greater than 600cc and the rest are too fragmented for positive identification. However, all of their cranial capacities are with in the upper limits of gorillas.

Finally, _Homo habilis_ is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.



> _Homo erectus_ (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early _H. erectus_ and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)


Most creationists believe that _Homo erectus_ was human but probably highly degenerative. The use of cranial capacity averages is a little deceptive. While it does show a general trend, it hides the fact that one of the "oldest" homo erectus fossils has one of the highest cranial capacities. (Fossil OH 9, cranial capacity 1065, "date" 1.5 ma. This fits the degenerative model perfectly.) If the cranial capacity of _Homo erectus_ was the result of a degenerative condition, those with the smaller brains would be the most degenerate, and as such they would also tend to be shorter-lived. So if the correct timing of the _Homo erectus_ fossils were only a few generations, one would expect the more degenerative ones to be the oldest and the less degenerative ones to be the youngest, with anomalies such as fossil OH 9.

Finally, _Homo erectus_ is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.



> A Pleistocene _Homo sapiens_ which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans".
> A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans.


Since all of these are human the presence of intermediates is no surprise.



> And there are fossils intermediate between these.


Since _Homo erectus_, _Homo sapiens_ and Neanderthals are all human beings, intermediates would be no surprise, since they are all descended from the same ancestors and would probably be interfertile. Furthermore, being the same genus, it is likely all australopithecines were descended from the same ancestors and probably interfertile, so intermediates would also be no surprise. So the question is: is there a clear gap between the genus homo and the genus Australopithecus?

Having shown that the so-called _Homo habilis_ fails to provide the necessary link, we are left with only a small number of fossils to consider.

_Homo rudolfensis_ is represented by several fossils but only skull KNM ER 1470 is reasonably intact. KNM ER 1470 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the lowest range of both _Homo ergaster_ and _Homo erectus_, both of which are fully human. The KNM ER 1470 skull has definite human features, and it looks as though in reconstructing this fossil the face was needlessly angled ten to twenty degrees away from the rest of the skull, making it look less human than it really is.

Next comes a group of fossils from Dmanisi, in Georgia of the former USSR. Three skulls were found at this site.


The first two are skulls D2880 and D2282. Both fit the morphology of _homo ergaster_ and are classified as such, making them human. Skull D2880 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the limits of _homo ergaster_. Skull D2282, however, is surprisingly small with a cranial capacity of only 650cc. While a human with such a small cranial capacity is surprising, it is not totally unexpected, based on the model that _Homo ergaster_ and _Homo erectus_ suffered from some form of degeneration. The fact that the only significant difference between D2282 and other _Homo ergaster_ skulls is its size supports the degeneration model.
The third skull, designated D2700, has a cranial capacity of only 600cc and like the other two was classified as _Homo ergaster_ and thus it was human. While smaller than D2282, D2700 was a juvenile whose adult cranial capacity would have been about 650cc making it comparable to D2282. Given the fact that D2282 and D2700 were found in the same area, there is a good likelihood that D2700 was the child of D2282.
Reference: Dmanisi Paleoanthropology - Dmanisi hominids
Reference: The Rolex Awards: an excavation shedding light on early human evolution, D. Lordkipanidze
Reference: Old Man of Georgia
So while the their brains were are on the extreme small end of the human kind, all four were clearly human. The fossils next down the line are clearly apes, so Talk.Origins' so-called fine transition does not exist.



> 2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape


Some disagreement has occurred about some individual finds, but this is nothing more than an information problem. Evolutionists guard their pet skulls like treasure. Most evolutionists don't even get a chance to study them firsthand, so a creationist does not stand a chance. Only one creationist, Dr. Jack Cuozzo, has had such an opportunity and that was only with a few Neanderthal skulls. As a rule, creation scientists need to rely on what they can get from evolutionary sources for information on these skulls. Sometimes that has lead to misunderstandings about just how human the individuals were. This is particularly true of older finds such as Java man and Peking man.



> 3. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:


However the same evidence can also point to a common designer. If you start with the assumption that all life on Earth had a common ancestor, then yes the genetic similarities between humans and apes would suggest a close relationship. Similarly, if you assume that life arose from unintelligent natural causes then the genetic similarities between humans and apes would strongly suggest a common ancestor. However, if the only relationship between humans and apes is a common designer, then the genetic similarities are to be expected.

The closest comparison would be computer programming, since the genetic code is basically the programming of biology. In writing computer programs it is very common for programmers to reuse the same code to do the same job. If you had two similar programs written by the same programmer, it highly likely that you would find probably find that the programing code is virtually identical, in both sequence and placement.

Note that Talk.Origins' says "humans and other apes", so Talk.Origins is implying that humans are apes. This type of wording reveals their bias.



> Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome.
> The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined.


Other than evolution there are at least two other possible explanations for this data.


Humans were genetically engineered by God or some other intelligent entity using ape DNA as starting point. This would be consistent with the programmer analogy, since programmers often modify existing programs to produce new ones. The two ape chromosomes could have been stitched together as evidence of the genetic engineering.
More likely humans were originally created with 24 pairs of chromosomes, and the two of them joined at some point. The most likely time from a Biblical perspective would have been during the fall.
From a naturalistic perspective, such chromosome joining is difficult to explain; it would likely cause problems reproducing unless you had at least one mating couple with the joined chromosomes.



> A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome.


This is to be expected if both were created by the same designer.



> Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses).


These too are evidence for design, when one understands how viruses fit in to the design scheme. If viruses were designed as a DNA transfer system intended to aid adaptability, then this is to be expected. Such a virus would not insert themselves totally randomly, but in a location dictated by the existing genetic code. The result is that even unrelated organisms with similar DNA would tend to get such viruses in the same location. Furthermore, deterioration caused by mutations would make it likely that insertions would become more random over time.


Reference: Genetic Variability by Design
Reference: Gene Hi-Jacking - The Role of Genetic Transformation
Reference: Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?
This interpretation is supported by studies showing that at least some ERVs are specific in their genome integration into the genome.


The present results indicate that there are highly specific integration patterns for each endogenous retrovirus that do not readily relate to their sequence or particle classification. Each host genome may utilize these elements for contrary, and possibly beneficial functions.

Integration site preferences of endogenous retroviruses.


Replication of retroviruses and retrotransposons depends on selecting a favorable chromosomal site for integration of their genomic DNA. Different retroelements meet this challenge by targeting distinctive chromosomal regions. Despite these differences, recent data hints at a common targeting mechanism-tethering of integration complexes to proteins bound at favorable sites.

Targeting survival: integration site selection by retroviruses and LTR-retrotransposons.







						All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
					






					www.creationwiki.org
				






Hollie said:


> “Satan” has no power of death. You may choose to frighten and intimidate children with that nonsense but don’t bring your pathology into the grown up room.



The only evidence I have for Satan is he contradicts God.  Atheists/ags and evolutionists avoid Satan.  Even believers avoid Satan, i.e. everyone avoids Satan.  They blame and swear against God if things do not turn out good for them.  I can't discuss Satan too much because he loves to hide and doesn't want to be exposed.  He has my respect.  The big trait is he loves to hide.  All I can do is warn you that he has the power of death.  Remember, they exchanged truth for a lie?  It means that some kind of transaction was made.  It is based on free will.  Why would it be stated like that as a _transaction_?  Not like "the devil made me do it?"


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Why are you arguing with a devout Islamist? Waste of your time, sir.


----------



## james bond (Feb 19, 2021)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



Those are taught in schools, too.  Before one can use what you mention, then they have to have a _foundation of knowledge_ to be able to put those skills and tools to use.  A young student has to learn how to walk before they can run.


----------



## james bond (Feb 19, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> ...



Did you learn human evolution then?  Where did you learn it?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Not in our school systems they aren't.


----------



## james bond (Feb 19, 2021)

surada said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



Typical atheist, anti-Christian and evolutionist.  You do not answer questions from those who you are discussing things with.  I usually assume they do not know.  But it's unfair not to state that and go an ask another question just to use for attack. 

I did remember the Natufians (not the term) as people of God.  They were Abraham's people.  They were _prehistoric_ people, too.  What were they to you?


----------



## james bond (Feb 19, 2021)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



That's surprising.  Public speaking was offered as a course when I went.  A basic computer course included introduction to Microsoft office software and operating systems.  No Apple.  It may not have gone into using it, but it was covered.



AzogtheDefiler said:


> Why are you arguing with a devout Islamist? Waste of your time, sir.



Probably.  He mentioned some things of interest but didn't answer my question and is likely avoiding them.


----------



## Crepitus (Feb 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


School.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



*Note:* The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

Well, first, I'm not clear what the Genesis Flood is. Secondly, if a literal interpretation of the Bibles is true, very little of science or reality is true. 

However, since there is no reason to accept any ''Genesis Flood'' or a flat earth or talking snakes or men living to 900 years old, etc., were left to exist in a contingent reality not controlled by old Men in nightgowns sitting on thrones in the clouds. 

Thanks.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Really ? The life expectancy has double since medical science has been used. Where do you get your information ?


----------



## james bond (Feb 19, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> Really ? The life expectancy has double since medical science has been used. Where do you get your information ?



Where do you get yours?  I read the news.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > Really ? The life expectancy has double since medical science has been used. Where do you get your information ?
> ...


.


james bond said:


> You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true.





BreezeWood said:


> what exactly does your genesis say that does not correspond to the evolution of physiology and its spiritual content -





james bond said:


> You do not answer questions from those who you are discussing things with.





james bond said:


> This claim is based mainly on a comparison of skulls, most of which are just incomplete fragments.


.
- what exactly does your genesis say.

it could be agreed, in a limited way that a transition from an ancestral source for present sapiens may not be explicit by physical evidence - being for bond the only criteria to resolve the matter - is their own self fulfilling flaw - and not a discrepancy in the theory of evolution.

as evolution is a metaphysical process that may or may not have intermediary representations that are not necessary for a final change to occur before the final product is produced - and may be the case for sapiens.

however, bond has never produced a physiological aspect of sapien that is exclusionary from all other physiological examples on planet Earth that would give credence to a distinction for humanity they believe exists in regards to their unsubstantiated christian bible. genesis.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > Really ? The life expectancy has double since medical science has been used. Where do you get your information ?
> ...


The one at the check out counter at the grocery store that also had a great article on alien invasions ?


----------



## james bond (Feb 20, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...



I get it.  Your kind has nothing but bogus arguments.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


.


james bond said:


> I get it. Your kind has nothing but bogus arguments.


.


----------



## Thoth001 (Feb 20, 2021)

When I was in middle school in the early 90's they did teach us evolution and that we came from apes. I didn't really believe it though, even when I was a kid. I figured there had to be much more to the story. I think it is more plausible that a group of ET's messed with the Neanderthal's DNA and created the humans we have now. That is the ancient astronaut theory. But, they are all just theories and I guess you can pick anyone, you want to believe in.


----------



## Burgermeister (Feb 21, 2021)

I know they never teach Darwin’s writings on black people. You sometimes hear that he was an abolitionist but it was more along the lines of PETA.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 21, 2021)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...


Well, I don’t read check out  counter trash or listen to made up sht.


----------



## james bond (Feb 21, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> Well, I don’t read check out  counter trash or listen to made up sht.



  Again, you are wrong.  It's your side that supposedly has the _advantage_ on this, but the current news is current news.

Even the Bible states, 70 to 80 years now.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I don’t read check out  counter trash or listen to made up sht.
> ...


Current news ? so, just saying it’s current news and a message form the Bible makes everything true. I’ll have to remember that. Wow, between religion and the check out counter, you’ve got everything covered. hilarious. “ even the Bible says. “ Chuckles “ Thats fairy tail land...


----------



## Burgermeister (Feb 22, 2021)

Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 22, 2021)

Burgermeister said:


> Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.


.
true -

the spiritual content of physiology is responsible from the beginning for its physical emergence and seemingly endless progression being simply happy to be alive and undoubtedly an as yet indeterminate goal that foolishly may be squandered by an insatiable lack of respect for the Garden that has emerged to sustain it, planet Earth. and yes, the spirit sought vision and made the means to acquire it. through physiology.


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 22, 2021)

BreezeWood said:


> Burgermeister said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.
> ...


Really ? Which one ? There are seven to choose from.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 23, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Burgermeister said:
> ...


.


Dagosa said:


> Really ? Which one ? There are seven to choose from.


.
... seven what -


----------



## james bond (Feb 23, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...



Sorry, I missed your reply.  You seem sure about this.

The Bible has it covered as we are supposed to live 70 to 80 years.  Isn't that true?  How long do you expect to live?  I may be one of the fortunate ones to live to around 90.

What does your evolution state?  I think it started with a low expectancy from the 1950s.  Is that why you think it's gone up to 70 to 80 years?


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 23, 2021)

Burgermeister said:


> Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.


Get real, Darwin like many Catholic monks contributed much to evolution . That doesn’t mean he had a handle on everything back in the 1800’s. Please, science doesn’t work that way.

It’s  hilarious to thing any one can speak for a scientist a hundred years later. Good grief....


----------



## Dagosa (Feb 23, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> Burgermeister said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.
> ...


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 23, 2021)

Burgermeister said:


> Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.



Got a link for that?


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The problem with comparing life expectancies is that the numbers make it look like it has significantly changed, as far as how old people get.   It doesn't.

The big difference is infant mortality and childhood mortality.    Once a child become an adolescent the chances of a long life improve significantly, and are not much different than today.


----------



## Burgermeister (Feb 23, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Burgermeister said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.
> ...


Google it. You’ll get all the links you want. Well known.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Ha ha, yet you fall for the book of fairy tales.


----------



## james bond (Feb 24, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Dagosa said:
> ...



I don't disagree as age, health, and disease play a part, but you're identifying in other factors.  The Silent Generation could have had a lower mortality rate due to two world wars.  Thus, it's hard to figure out what is behind the nos from 1950s.  If one talks about life expectancy today, then it has gone down in recent years such as from the 2000s.


----------



## james bond (Feb 24, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Human evolution didn't happen.  The common ancestor was a chimpanzee instead.  We don't even observe bipedal apes.  Now, that's a fairy tale.  LMAO at your dumb reasoning with nothing to back it up.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Can you support your statement that a common ancestor [for humans] was a chimpanzee? I have never seen any support for that so what is your source?


----------



## james bond (Feb 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



You are really confused or have lost your marbles.  I can support it because we still have chimpanzees today, none are bipedal, and we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor.  The science backs up Genesis.


----------



## badbob85037 (Feb 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> 
> "*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
> Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
> ...


You still don't. Try reading Genesis.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


As you know, none of that makes sense. 

You stated in your earlier post "the common ancestor was a chimpanzee''. 

In your latest post you stated, ''we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor''.  

How does science ''back up'' genesis? Does science ''back up'' a 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 24, 2021)

.
one might ask what exactly is the spiritual content of physiology and how it differs from one species to another or even one being of the same species to another and if it is the same for all beings from the very beginning. and evolved differently.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You have yet to back up the fairy tale book, the bible........


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> 
> "*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
> Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
> ...


I don't know what shitty schools you went to, but we absolutely did learn human evolution in science class starting in middle school.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Aug 10, 2021)

School is ever learning, never knowing what the truth is.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Aug 10, 2021)

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> School is ever learning, never knowing what the truth is. Parts that we did not make made us to be, The human mind is naturally against the mind, that made the parts, that made us to be. That mind is naturally against the sight of those parts. That is why there are laws agaanst the showing of those parts, on young, and old.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Aug 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> You're just repeating the biology or ToE.  Thus, it's a THEORY.  It clearly states it is a theory.  If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.
> 
> Instead, what I am discussing is _human evolution_ which did not happen and isn't taught in schools.  Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?


Presumption will exist with evolution. Faith, and presumption, are not the same. God who made all is life. Death came latter. What we see are the results of death. God could not have made life, had God be death.


----------



## james bond (Aug 11, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> You have yet to back up the fairy tale book, the bible........


Science proved it with EMS or light.  It powers the universe since energy can't be created nor destroyed now.


----------



## james bond (Aug 11, 2021)

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> Presumption will exist with evolution. Faith, and presumption, are not the same. God who made all is life. Death came latter. What we see are the results of death. God could not have made life, had God be death.


You can presume anything, but then science won't back it up if it's not true (like evolution).


----------



## Hollie (Aug 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> You can presume anything, but then science won't back it up if it's not true (like evolution).


The Flat Earthers' / religious extremists tend to be the loudest science deniers.


----------



## james bond (Aug 11, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The Flat Earthers' / religious extremists tend to be the loudest science deniers.


I was discussing the science of burning.  Probably in a lava pool or volcano if it's comparable to the lake of fire.  The heat could get up 3000 degrees F.  Even a gas stove (methane or LPG) can get from 600 to 3000 degrees F.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> I was discussing the science of burning.  Probably in a lava pool or volcano if it's comparable to the lake of fire.  The heat could get up 3000 degrees F.  Even a gas stove (methane or LPG) can get from 600 to 3000 degrees F.


Your fears and superstitions about some godly lake of fire don't belong in the Science and Technology forum.


----------



## james bond (Aug 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Your fears and superstitions about some godly lake of fire don't belong in the Science and Technology forum.


Sure it does with creation science.  OTOH, how did heat get to quantum particles when matter had no energy?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> OTOH, how did heat get to quantum particles when matter had no energy?


That question makes no sense at all. Even if it did make sense the random sciencey words you put in that sentence has nothing to do with the OP concerning evolution and schools.
.


----------



## james bond (Aug 12, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That question makes no sense at all. Even if it did make sense the random sciencey words you put in that sentence has nothing to do with the OP concerning evolution and schools.
> .


One of the things students have fault with evolution is that it does not explain how our universe and Earth (solar system) came to be.  Usually, the evolutionists think it was due to quantum mechanics or physics.  Read Stephen Hawking.  There is a lack of explanation of how QM came to be.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> One of the things students have fault with evolution is that it does not explain how our universe and Earth (solar system) came to be.


You are conflating evolution with the formation of the universe! 
Evolution is how living things developed.
The big bang is how the galaxies and contents developed.
Two totally different things.


james bond said:


> Usually, the evolutionists think it was due to quantum mechanics or physics.


No, no they don't! quantum mechanics and physics are not the cause of anything! They are mathematical models of observations, not causes. That is tantamount to saying a book on Lincoln's death is the cause of his death. 

.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> One of the things students have fault with evolution is that it does not explain how our universe and Earth (solar system) came to be.  Usually, the evolutionists think it was due to quantum mechanics or physics.  Read Stephen Hawking.  There is a lack of explanation of how QM came to be.


Your comments reflect the problems students at your madrassah are having.


----------



## james bond (Aug 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You are conflating evolution with the formation of the universe!
> Evolution is how living things developed.
> The big bang is how the galaxies and contents developed.
> Two totally different things.
> ...


I mentioned evolutionary thinking.  It follows the stupid BS that is evolution which you readily believe and accept.  Stupid is as stupid does.

>>Evolution is how living things developed.<<

That's a lie and false belief of evolutionists.  We know it was natural selection which comes from creation science.  Evos stole the concept for themselves which is the only truth.

The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth came up with _natural selection_ about 25 years before Darwin stole it to support his theory of evolution.  Yes, Darwin is a thief and liar and should be punished appropriately.



Wuwei said:


> No, no they don't! quantum mechanics and physics are not the cause of anything! They are mathematical models of observations, not causes. That is tantamount to saying a book on Lincoln's death is the cause of his death.



Then just admit that evolution and evolutionary thinking is a huge lie and has _no causes_.


----------



## james bond (Aug 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Your comments reflect the problems students at your madrassah are having.



>>The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873) wrote about _natural selection_ about 25 years before Darwin misappropriated it to support his theory of evolution."<<

Why don't you point the finger at Wuwei lol?  He's way behind in natural selection and lies of evolution and evolutionary thinking.


----------



## BS Filter (Aug 13, 2021)

Conservatives were created by God.  Lefties evolved from monkeys.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> >>The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873) wrote about _natural selection_ about 25 years before Darwin misappropriated it to support his theory of evolution."<<
> 
> Why don't you point the finger at Wuwei lol?  He's way behind in natural selection and lies of evolution and evolutionary thinking.


I have reason to accept your imposing the ''creationer'' label on anyone. That's a tactic employed by creation'istas in various threads. The Hyper-religious tend to to impose their extremist beliefs on long dead individuals.

 "Writing about'' natural selection is far different from what Darwin accomplished. He set forth a comprehensive theory examined core precepts of ''descent with modification", "adaptation", "fitness for survival". The great contribution of Darwin’s original theory is that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise in an ordered way from the interaction between organisms and their environment. And yet, the creationists they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there *shouldn’t be *any of that evidence of adaptation to require accommodation.

Organisms evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. The data confirms that. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for the hyper-religious. If you have evidence for a supernatural causation, present it.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> I mentioned evolutionary thinking.  It follows the stupid BS that is evolution which you readily believe and accept.  Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> >>Evolution is how living things developed.<<
> 
> ...


We went through that many times. We know you don't believe basic science. We know you hate atheists. We know you disbelieve evolution.

You simply have nothing more to say except repeating the same thing over and over.

.


----------



## LittleNipper (Aug 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> We went through that many times. We know you don't believe basic science. We know you hate atheists. We know you disbelieve evolution.
> 
> You simply have nothing more to say except repeating the same thing over and over.
> 
> .


We also know that "could have", "should have", "likely happened" and a "high probability" are not terns that should be found in "science" texts ----- but is.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 14, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> We also know that "could have", "should have", "likely happened" and a "high probability" are not terns that should be found in "science" texts ----- but is.


Creationists sites are replete with those terms. You will never find those terms in basic science texts such as in quantum mechanics. You may find "high probability" in new incomplete experiments where there isn't enough data for a satisfactory statistical confidence interval. But that's it.

J. Bond wants to change basic physics such as quantum mechanics. Can you point out examples of basic physics texts that use those terms? Have you ever read basic physics texts?

.


----------



## 22lcidw (Aug 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I have reason to accept your imposing the ''creationer'' label on anyone. That's a tactic employed by creation'istas in various threads. The Hyper-religious tend to to impose their extremist beliefs on long dead individuals.
> 
> "Writing about'' natural selection is far different from what Darwin accomplished. He set forth a comprehensive theory examined core precepts of ''descent with modification", "adaptation", "fitness for survival". The great contribution of Darwin’s original theory is that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise in an ordered way from the interaction between organisms and their environment. And yet, the creationists they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there *shouldn’t be *any of that evidence of adaptation to require accommodation.
> 
> Organisms evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. The data confirms that. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for the hyper-religious. If you have evidence for a supernatural causation, present it.


The main issue is where and why did anything be existing in the first place? So you need to prove that evidence of evolutionists. Our civilizations are violent with periods of civility. In our nation today, we take things for granted in a world where reality is far different for billions of people compared to our living standards.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2021)

22lcidw said:


> The main issue is where and why did anything be existing in the first place? So you need to prove that evidence of evolutionists. Our civilizations are violent with periods of civility. In our nation today, we take things for granted in a world where reality is far different for billions of people compared to our living standards.


Biological evolution does not address the beginning of life.


----------



## 22lcidw (Aug 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Biological evolution does not address the beginning of life.


Then your view of the past is weak when the wars of debauchery occur over and over. And we are due again on a global scale.


----------



## james bond (Aug 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I have reason to accept your imposing the ''creationer'' label on anyone. That's a tactic employed by creation'istas in various threads. The Hyper-religious tend to to impose their extremist beliefs on long dead individuals.
> 
> "Writing about'' natural selection is far different from what Darwin accomplished. He set forth a comprehensive theory examined core precepts of ''descent with modification", "adaptation", "fitness for survival". The great contribution of Darwin’s original theory is that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise in an ordered way from the interaction between organisms and their environment. And yet, the creationists they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there *shouldn’t be *any of that evidence of adaptation to require accommodation.
> 
> Organisms evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. The data confirms that. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for the hyper-religious. If you have evidence for a supernatural causation, present it.


Haha.  How hypocritical of you.  Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell are long dead and will be suffering for all eternity in hell.  Aren't you the one imposing your extremist atheist beliefs on long dead individuals.  Dr. Blyth came up with the concept of natural selection, but he didn't apply it to mean the lie of a common ancestor. 

And there is no descent with modification if you cannot present transitional fossils.  I have said this many, many, many times.  Thus, your side has no evidence for evolution.

Yet, I found Stephen Hawking who backs up how the sky can become fire from global warming and _kill all of the sinners and atheists remaining on Earth in the global fire_.  Start from 8:48 if you want to skip the rest.  If I'm still around, then my fellow Christians and I will be saved and gone from Earth by the rapture.


The evidence for God is the EMS when he said, "Let there be light."  He spoke it into existence.  From this, he separated the lightness from the darkness and time began as well as space.  All of the energy we need is contained in the universe.


----------



## james bond (Aug 14, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> We went through that many times. We know you don't believe basic science. We know you hate atheists. We know you disbelieve evolution.
> 
> You simply have nothing more to say except repeating the same thing over and over.
> 
> .


I've said many times that James Hutton and Charles Lyell admitted that evolution, evolutionary thinking, and uniformitarianism was based on the religion of atheism.  It isn't based on basic science, but the religion of atheism.  Uniformitarianism and evolution started out to contradict the Bible and creation science.  Basic science would consider creationism and this is why it should be taught in schools as part of basic science.

I do admit I said many times that you and your side have their atheist science of evolution and beliefs while _the creationists have their creation science and the Bible._  We are on two different sides of science and religion.  Why should I hate atheists for that?  God hates sin, especially putting false gods/idols before him such as evolution and evolutionary thinking.  He will take care of it during the rapture and global fire on Earth and the rest in the afterlife.  It's his anger towards you and the atheists and not mine.  Mine is only to present and argue creation science here.  You have to recognize my side, too.  We're not going to teach the rapture and end of the world. 

Finally, there is no evidence for evolution because of there is no common ancestor.  There are no transitional fossils.  That fact destroys the lies of evolution.


----------



## james bond (Aug 14, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> J. Bond wants to change basic physics such as quantum mechanics. Can you point out examples of basic physics texts that use those terms? Have you ever read basic physics texts?


I can't help it if you do not understand the ramifications of quantum mechanics.  I got it from Stephen Hawking and his multiverse theory.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Haha.  How hypocritical of you.  Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell are long dead and will be suffering for all eternity in hell.  Aren't you the one imposing your extremist atheist beliefs on long dead individuals.  Dr. Blyth came up with the concept of natural selection, but he didn't apply it to mean the lie of a common ancestor.
> 
> And there is no descent with modification if you cannot present transitional fossils.  I have said this many, many, many times.  Thus, your side has no evidence for evolution.
> 
> ...


You should ease up on the tactic of using your gods as a vehicle to project your fears and prejudices. Your hysterical, anti-science rants are all the same nonsense you steal from the hysterical, anti-science fundi ministries.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> I've said many times that James Hutton and Charles Lyell admitted that evolution, evolutionary thinking, and uniformitarianism was based on the religion of atheism.  It isn't based on basic science, but the religion of atheism.  Uniformitarianism and evolution started out to contradict the Bible and creation science.  Basic science would consider creationism and this is why it should be taught in schools as part of basic science.
> 
> I do admit I said many times that you and your side have their atheist science of evolution and beliefs while _the creationists have their creation science and the Bible._  We are on two different sides of science and religion.  Why should I hate atheists for that?  God hates sin, especially putting false gods/idols before him such as evolution and evolutionary thinking.  He will take care of it during the rapture and global fire on Earth and the rest in the afterlife.  It's his anger towards you and the atheists and not mine.  Mine is only to present and argue creation science here.  You have to recognize my side, too.  We're not going to teach the rapture and end of the world.
> 
> Finally, there is no evidence for evolution because of there is no common ancestor.  There are no transitional fossils.  That fact destroys the lies of evolution.


There are many transitional fossils. You simply reinforce your profound ignorance by furthering falsehoods.


----------



## james bond (Aug 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You should ease up on the tactic of using your gods as a vehicle to project your fears and prejudices. Your hysterical, anti-science rants are all the same nonsense you steal from the hysterical, anti-science fundi ministries.


Enough with the anti and no science "fundi ministries" lies.  They're the creation science ones which follow the scientific method and the ways creation science has developed through its world renowned history.  For example, we have Dr. Willard Libby who found radiocarbon dating which is more accurate about the age of palae-otologic and anthropologic articles.  Your side has nothing like that.


----------



## james bond (Aug 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There are many transitional fossils. You simply reinforce your profound ignorance by furthering falsehoods.


Haha.  Yours are all questionable.  Nothing that really counts as a common ancestor.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Haha.  Yours are all questionable.  Nothing that really counts as a common ancestor.


The type of comment one expects from a science illiterate / religious extremist.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Aug 14, 2021)

abu afak said:


> So you're blaming the school system for YOUR Ignorance
> Or the politics of Indoctrinated Religious FREAKS like YOU not allowing it in those schools.
> Or both?
> 
> ...


Human evolution as presented by the Darwinian cultists suggests that vertical evolution is TRUTH.  Yes there are differences in evolution.  One type of evolution is a fact of science.........Horizontal Evolution, i.e., evolution within species,  if man had not been created with the ability to adapt to his environment he would have became extinct the first time he came into contract with the common cold virus...etc.,  the first time there was a drastic climate change (evolution of skin color, etc.)

The type of evolution taught as truth yet has never been confirmed via any scientific method experimentation.....is Vertical Evolution,  i.e., the change of one type of life form into a completely different creature.  Such as suggesting but unable to prove that man evolved from primates.....by presenting the false premise that a commonality of DNA makes that a FACT.

Its a fact of science that ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE on earth share DNA to some extent.   Simply because a primate was created with a DNA signature that includes over 90% of man's DNA is not evidence that a primate evolved into man.........or a fish evolved into a primate because of shared DNA...etc.,

For evolution to be true as taught by the Darwinian Cultists (vertical evolution into a different life form).........NEW INFORMATION would be required or added to a pre-existing DNA signature.  There simply is no scientific evidence that proves that MUTATION adds information.

In Fact the scientific method proves that mutation deforms or takes away from an existing DNA signature.  A mutated creature or a creature that was born with faulty DNA is not evolution.  Much like the evolutionary cultist will present a picture of some deformed fish and claim that this creature was caught in a state of evolutionary transition.

Another fact to consider:  Mr. Pasteur proved that Life can only be reproduced WITHIN SPECIES...i.e., that life can only stim from pre-existing life of the same species.

You presented a false premise and claimed that evolution has been proven true when the basic tenet of vertical evolution must by necessity begin with life stimming from non living matter.  Yet each and every time that the scientific method is applied to that theory........its falsified not confirmed.  If not simply present the experiment that proves that life was first created from non living matter.   When you attempt to erect a building you cannot construct it on a false foundation.

But you will then claim that it does not matter if this basic tenet (abiogenesis) cannot be proven.........that does not stop vertical evolution from being true.

Now.......simply present the experiment based upon the Scientific Method that falsifies CREATION.  Its abiogenesis that is falsified.   Creation has never been falsified by any scientific experiment. 

Logical Truth:  If Abiogenesis is not found to be true.......then God cannot be dismissed as a possible cause of CREATION.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> I've said many times that James Hutton and Charles Lyell admitted that evolution, evolutionary thinking, and uniformitarianism was based on the religion of atheism.  It isn't based on basic science, but the religion of atheism.  Uniformitarianism and evolution started out to contradict the Bible and creation science.  Basic science would consider creationism and this is why it should be taught in schools as part of basic science.
> 
> I do admit I said many times that you and your side have their atheist science of evolution and beliefs while _the creationists have their creation science and the Bible._  We are on two different sides of science and religion.  Why should I hate atheists for that?  God hates sin, especially putting false gods/idols before him such as evolution and evolutionary thinking.  He will take care of it during the rapture and global fire on Earth and the rest in the afterlife.  It's his anger towards you and the atheists and not mine.  Mine is only to present and argue creation science here.  You have to recognize my side, too.  We're not going to teach the rapture and end of the world.
> 
> Finally, there is no evidence for evolution because of there is no common ancestor.  There are no transitional fossils.  That fact destroys the lies of evolution.


Baloney. It's obvious in your posts that you have an enormous capacity for hatred for scientists that disagree with YEC; you hate all atheists; and even Chinese; and you disbelieve basic science. You have shown that many times.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> I can't help it if you do not understand the ramifications of quantum mechanics. I got it from Stephen Hawking and his multiverse theory.


You don't understand the physical constants, laws, and forces. How can you think you understand multiverse theory.


----------



## james bond (Aug 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The type of comment one expects from a science illiterate / religious extremist.


You need to stop bragging about yourself.  

Let's look at the evidence.  There are no transitional fossils.  There are no common ancestors.  There are and never were any bipedal apes.  There is no long time as radiometric age has nothing to do with calendar age.


----------



## james bond (Aug 15, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Baloney. It's obvious in your posts that you have an enormous capacity for hatred for scientists that disagree with YEC; you hate all atheists; and even Chinese; and you disbelieve basic science. You have shown that many times.
> 
> .


You lost the argument over long time and radiometric age, so are now crying like a baby and using racism as an attack.  In an s&t forum yet.  It didn't take long.  Your posts have gotten too emo and continued to be filled extreme anger and frustration.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> You need to stop bragging about yourself.
> 
> Let's look at the evidence.  There are no transitional fossils.  There are no common ancestors.  There are and never were any bipedal apes.  There is no long time as radiometric age has nothing to do with calendar age.


There are many transitional fossils. Your ignorance is no excuse. 

There are many common ancestors. Your ignorance is no excuse. 

No bipedal apes? Religious extremists may substitute. 

We have ''long time'... at least for various dating methods. 

Your various gods should get their stories straight.


----------



## james bond (Aug 15, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You don't understand the physical constants, laws, and forces. How can you think you understand multiverse theory.


I understand because I brought up the fine tuning parameters which you and the atheist science side had no response for.  Initially, Stephen Hawking used multiverses or parallel universes to counter the fine tuning, but it ran into problems with Einstein's TOR.

In his final research, he's gone from quantum mechanics before the big bang to string theory because of the math and Einstein's TOR.

'"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking.

The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory: a branch of theoretical physics that attempts to reconcile gravity and general relativity with quantum physics, in part by describing the fundamental constituents of the universe as tiny vibrating strings. Their approach uses the string theory concept of holography, which postulates that the universe is a large and complex hologram: physical reality in certain 3-D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2-D projections on a surface.

Hawking and Hertog developed a variation of this concept of holography to project out the time dimension in eternal inflation. This enabled them to describe eternal inflation without having to rely on Einstein' theory. In the new theory, eternal inflation is reduced to a timeless state defined on a spatial surface at the beginning of time.

"When we trace the evolution of our universe backwards in time, at some point we arrive at the threshold of eternal inflation, where our familiar notion of time ceases to have any meaning," said Hertog.

Hawking's earlier 'no boundary theory' predicted that if you go back in time to the beginning of the universe, the universe shrinks and closes off like a sphere, but this new theory represents a step away from the earlier work. "Now we're saying that there is a boundary in our past," said Hertog.

Hertog and Hawking used their new theory to derive more reliable predictions about the global structure of the universe. They predicted the universe that emerges from eternal inflation on the past boundary is finite and far simpler than the infinite fractal structure predicted by the old theory of eternal inflation.

Their results, if confirmed by further work, would have far-reaching implications for the multiverse paradigm. "We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes," said Hawking.

This makes the theory more predictive and testable.

Hertog now plans to study the implications of the new theory on smaller scales that are within reach of our space telescopes. He believes that primordial gravitational waves – ripples in spacetime – generated at the exit from eternal inflation constitute the most promising "smoking gun" to test the model. The expansion of our universe since the beginning means such gravitational waves would have very long wavelengths, outside the range of the current LIGO detectors. But they might be heard by the planned European space-based gravitational wave observatory, LISA, or seen in future experiments measuring the cosmic microwave background.'









						Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
					

Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.




					phys.org
				




You would've brought up Hawking's final work already to top what I had you known any of Hawking's work, so it PROVES it is YOU _who does not understand._  LMAO.


----------



## james bond (Aug 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There are many transitional fossils. Your ignorance is no excuse.
> 
> There are many common ancestors. Your ignorance is no excuse.
> 
> ...


#1 is a deliberate lie or is such a superficial argument that no reply is necessary.

#2 is a bigger lie.

All of your previous arguments end up in frustration, anger, and yet another ad hominem attack.

What dating methods?  Who was it that found these long times?  What year?

I only have one God and the Bible which you deliberately misconstrued here.  Your statement has been exposed as another lie.

I know that I'll die knowing the WHOLE TRUTH of s&t up until the time while you and your ilk will go knowing that you believed in lies of evolution and evolutionary thinking.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> I understand because I brought up the fine tuning parameters which you and the atheist science side had no response for.  Initially, Stephen Hawking used multiverses or parallel universes to counter the fine tuning, but it ran into problems with Einstein's TOR.
> 
> In his final research, he's gone from quantum mechanics before the big bang to string theory because of the math and Einstein's TOR.
> 
> ...


There is no godly ''fine tuning'' you can present. Your claim that Hawking ''proved'' fine tuning is just another example of religious extremists making false claims.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> You lost the argument over long time and radiometric age, so are now crying like a baby and using racism as an attack. In an s&t forum yet. It didn't take long. Your posts have gotten too emo and continued to be filled extreme anger and frustration.


Ah, the troll speaks again. Those are old troll tricks. The one who cries like a baby and is so emotional is the same one who accuses others. Try harder. It didn't work in the past and it doesn't work now.
.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> #1 is a deliberate lie or is such a superficial argument that no reply is necessary.
> 
> #2 is a bigger lie.
> 
> ...


That saliva-slinging tirade was disturbing.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> I understand because I brought up the fine tuning parameters which you and the atheist science side had no response for. Initially, Stephen Hawking used multiverses or parallel universes to counter the fine tuning, but it ran into problems with Einstein's TOR.


The fine tuning of physics laws is an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is awesome  -- the values of the constants and the fundamental forces that allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA. The rest of your post is just a copy and paste.

I have studied physics over decades and am awed by the nature of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.

To me the great mysteries are why the universe follows mathematics to the most minute detail; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds; and consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this. 

The difference between you and me is that you want to focus on an "intelligent designer" with whatever liturgy you use; and copying and pasting cherry picked passages of science that you don't really understand. You reject all physics that does not mesh with your strict interpretation of the Bible. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory. There is no point in considering a "designer" or "first cause" simply because it falls outside any logical path of investigation. You get your design from the bible. I get mine from detailed investigation with an open mind. My religion is a continually transforming deism. You are stuck with an ancient text that you take literally. 

Some of my relatives are YEC. We love each other. We can live in harmony in our separate beliefs. But you have a deep vitriol when nobody agrees with your insistence that science is consistent with YEC. You want to cross the line and troll those who are much more science-savvy. You want to vilify scientists and denigrate science that you don't understand. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That saliva-slinging tirade was disturbing.


The god fearing troll is getting desperate. 

.


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The fine tuning of physics laws is an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is awesome  -- the values of the constants and the fundamental forces that allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA. The rest of your post is just a copy and paste.
> 
> I have studied physics over decades and am awed by the nature of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.
> 
> ...


Lol.  Just give it up.  You don't belong in the s&t forum b/c of your religious nutgoober atheism.  I know you've lost your honor and everything at the end.  You are too creepy and ignorant so you can be ignored in s&t.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol. Just give it up. You don't belong in the s&t forum b/c of your religious nutgoober atheism [*YEC mania*]. I know you've lost your honor and everything at the end. You are too creepy and ignorant so you can be ignored in s&t.


Well the troll is on a rampage with his ad hominem rant. That's all you have left.

What I think, but don't have the same deep bitterness that you have, is exactly the same as your quote above where I crossed off "atheism" and substituted "YEC mania". Your tired old troll tool, "you-are-what-I-am" is way overused.

,


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> 
> "*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
> Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
> ...


Teachers are afraid to teach it because of the backlash from ignorant students and parents. Most people in this country know very little of science and are not competent to decide anything about evolution, nor for that matter global warming or matters related to a pandemic.

Science ignorance is one of our greatest national problems. You don't see this crap going on in Germany, China, etc.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> You're just repeating the biology or ToE.  Thus, it's a THEORY.  It clearly states it is a theory.  If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.
> 
> Instead, what I am discussing is _human evolution_ which did not happen and isn't taught in schools.  Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?


You do not know what "theory" means. And your post is full of nonsense. Look at Lucy's pelvis. That is NOT a chimp pelvis. Nor are her knees. Nor the position of the foramen magnum. All are hominin. You know nothing about this, and so the ONLY intelligent thing you can do relative to this topic is shut up.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> The truth is people weren't taught human evolution.  Human evolution isn't a fact.  Even Darwin didn't say that.  Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.  That kills it right there.  And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you?  Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?


Oh there are plenty of ape traits among humans, and also there are many humans whose behavior suggests the presence of some jackass DNA


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> I think Olga was, but human evolution was not part of the curriculum.  There is no evidence for a common ancestor since Lucy was a chimpanzee.
> 
> Which makes me ask were you taught human evolution?


You are ignorant of the facts. Therefore, you cannot discuss this topic. All you can emit is nonsense.

You know nothing of human physiology, apparently. Lucy's pelvis was human. In fact from the neck down she was very human. Her brain size wasn't much greater than that of a chimp. But her teeth were of hominin type, her jaw, the position of the skull relative to the spinal column, the pelvis with elongated iliac, knees obviously of a bipedal individual... All of that negates the possibility she was not hominin.

Really, discussing a topic about which you know nothing only confirms that you're a fool.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> This isn't about natural science.  There are plenty of threads here of creation science vs evolution.  This is about what the majority of Americans believe and it isn't human evolution, i.e. humans evolved from monkeys.  They believe in creation.  It also touches what people are willing to allow to be taught in schools such as creation as a religion.  Or ID as science.
> 
> So, in regards to books, you can use your book in evolution science classes while the Bible can be used in creation classes.


No "Creation class" will be held in any public school, due to the First Amendment.

I think you would be much happier in Iran with a theocratic state.


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Well the troll is on a rampage with his ad hominem rant. That's all you have left.
> 
> What I think, but don't have the same deep bitterness that you have, is exactly the same as your quote above where I crossed off "atheism" and substituted "YEC mania". Your tired old troll tool, "you-are-what-I-am" is way overused.
> 
> ,









No troll.  Just roll.  Here's the sign.  Learn to accept it.  

Creation science is just eating you up inside  YOU ---> .


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> You are ignorant of the facts. Therefore, you cannot discuss this topic. All you can emit is nonsense.
> 
> You know nothing of human physiology, apparently. Lucy's pelvis was human. In fact from the neck down she was very human. Her brain size wasn't much greater than that of a chimp. But her teeth were of hominin type, her jaw, the position of the skull relative to the spinal column, the pelvis with elongated iliac, knees obviously of a bipedal individual... All of that negates the possibility she was not hominin.
> 
> Really, discussing a topic about which you know nothing only confirms that you're a fool.


You said a chimpanzee's pelvis was human.  Can you show us and explain?  I doubt it cause you're a close minded fool.

Anyway, I can just put you on ignore as a stupid, stupid, stupid and foolish, foolish, foolish poster I've met.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> No troll. Just roll. Here's the sign. Learn to accept it.
> 
> Creation science is just eating you up inside YOU ---> .


The troll lashes out again. That's all you got now. 
.


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The troll lashes out again. That's all you got now.
> .


Wrong.  I'll always have God, the Bible, and creation science.  You got the other, i.e. without God, atheist science, damnation, the _real troll_ that comes with it, etc.


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> No "Creation class" will be held in any public school, due to the First Amendment.
> 
> I think you would be much happier in Iran with a theocratic state.


I said creation science class.


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Lucy's pelvis was human.


Lucy and her pelvis were ape.  Most likely chimpanzee.

Besides, no ape wanted to be bipedal.  You lost to science already.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> No troll.  Just roll.  Here's the sign.  Learn to accept it.
> 
> Creation science is just eating you up inside  YOU ---> .


On the other hand, you are among those religious extremists / science loathing types who use their bibles to promote fear and ignorance.


----------



## james bond (Aug 18, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> No "Creation class" will be held in any public school, due to the First Amendment.
> 
> I think you would be much happier in Iran with a theocratic state.


Creation is how everything got here.  Creation can easily be taught in public schools as science.  Right now, the public schools teach the lies of evolution and _atheist_ science.  The public schools are teaching religion now.


----------



## surada (Apr 15, 2022)

james bond said:


> Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?
> 
> "*I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From*
> Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
> ...


This is easy to understand.            Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches).


----------



## surada (Apr 15, 2022)

james bond said:


> Creation is how everything got here.  Creation can easily be taught in public schools as science.  Right now, the public schools teach the lies of evolution and _atheist_ science.  The public schools are teaching religion now.


Creation science isn't science at all.. and evolution isn't religion. Try to understand.     Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches).


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 15, 2022)

surada said:


> Creation science isn't science at all.. and evolution isn't religion. Try to understand.     Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches).


Adaptive evolution is not THE EVOLUTION taught to our children.  God created all life to be able to adapt to their natural surroundings, that ability to adapt is provided in all perfect strains of biological species..........WITHIN SPECIES, just as God detailed and Pasteur confirmed via Scientific Experimentation.  Life can only be reproduced via pre-existing biological life.....WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.  (Genesis 1:24-25)

The link you presented proves nothing........especially Darwinian evolution with one species evolving from a completely different species of life as claimed.   You present the species of Bird.....the finch and then claim that its evolution that makes the species adapt to its surrounding when in reality the DNA has been present all along that make those adaptations possible.....it is just dormant until required.  All men are born with mammary glands.......but they are not used because the male does not require it to reproduce.

A finch is still a finch .........all birds are birds, just like all cats are felines, etc.  All k-9s are still canine regardless of how they have adapted, Wolves, Dogs, Coyotes, fox etc. are members of the "Canids" family species.

Its the slight of hand trick used by con artists.  You present natural adaptation that has existed since creation and claim that is the same evolution as evolving OUTSIDE the species.   No cat (feline) has been documented evolving changing by mutation into a Canid species, that never existed before.

Mutation does not add unto a healthy strain of DNA.........it corrupts it, takes away information, it does not add new information that did not exist before.   Its just like claiming that Man evolved from lower primates like a chimp etc..  If that were true......why are there still Chimps being born?  Are the modern chimps just to stupid to evolve into man?

Reality:  All biological life share to some extent the same DNA signature.  Simply because man has more information stored in his DNA does not prove that a chimp will one day add new DNA through some type of evolution that is yet to be confirmed by the Scientific Method.   All life forms on earth are carbon based........all come from the elements that are common to the earth and its surrounding space.


----------



## james bond (Apr 15, 2022)

surada said:


> This is easy to understand.            Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches).


It's like humans have different lips.  NBD.  Stop listening to Darwin and give his descendant a fat lip.



surada said:


> Creation science isn't science at all.. and evolution isn't religion. Try to understand.     Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches).


Creation science is the REAL SCIENCE.  Evolution is based on observation of the Earth _after_ the flood and isn't correct.  They assumed the global flood was a religious fairy tale.  The atheist scientists started with the wrong scenario and went way wrong.  Satan could not have done better.  It's like how he fooled Adam and Eve.  Evolution is the fairy tale, but you do not have the metal fortitude and capacity to be able to figure it out.  Evolution has no scientific evidence while science backs up creation.

Everything I learned about science backs up creation while none of it validates evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> It's like humans have different lips.  NBD.  Stop listening to Darwin and give his descendant a fat lip.
> 
> 
> Creation science is the REAL SCIENCE.  Evolution is based on observation of the Earth _after_ the flood and isn't correct.  They assumed the global flood was a religious fairy tale.  The atheist scientists started with the wrong scenario and went way wrong.  Satan could not have done better.  It's like how he fooled Adam and Eve.  Evolution is the fairy tale, but you do not have the metal fortitude and capacity to be able to figure it out.  Evolution has no scientific evidence while science backs up creation.
> ...


Everything you learned at the Henry Morris madrassah would explain your religious extremism.


----------



## james bond (Apr 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Everything you learned at the Henry Morris madrassah would explain your religious extremism.


Yours has nothing to do with S&T, so I'll take my reply as a freebie.  Maybe the atheists/ags have to PAY for their choices in life when they die.  I always thought it was a consequence but it seems like a HIGH PRICE.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> Yours has nothing to do with S&T, so I'll take my reply as a freebie.  Maybe the atheists/ags have to PAY for their choices in life when they die.  I always thought it was a consequence but it seems like a HIGH PRICE.


Your cheap threats are meaningless.


----------



## james bond (Apr 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your cheap threats are meaningless.


Why do you keep butting in?  I'll keep saying this and that they aren't threats, but _warnings_ in this life.  Once the unbelievers/ags die, then...

death means everlasting punishment, but immediately they are sent to a temporary holding place, to await their final resurrection, judgment, and eternal destiny like the believers.


----------



## james bond (Apr 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your cheap threats are meaningless.


You might as well make yourself useful besides being a POS.  Since it's almost lunchtime and I'm making burritos, what is the difference between a burrito and a chimichanga?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> Why do you keep butting in?  I'll keep saying this and that they aren't threats, but _warnings_ in this life.  Once the unbelievers/ags die, then...
> 
> death means everlasting punishment, but immediately they are sent to a temporary holding place, to await their final resurrection, judgment, and eternal destiny like the believers.


Why does your religion make you so angry and self-hating?


----------



## james bond (Apr 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Why does your religion make you so angry and self-hating?


Lol, I am not angry nor self-hating due to Christianity nor the Bible.  I am happy with my Christianity and Bible.  It has creation science for S&T.  The latter is why I post here often; It's something to do for fun, gaining/sharing knowledge and entertainment.  Since last year, I started to think I am not making a dent to atheists and ags thinking, even with science backing the Bible and me up.  However, that is on the atheists and ags.  

I don't think I follow anyone around.  OTOH, you post almost every time I post which just occured to me.  Moreover, you could not answer a basic question of why you follow me around.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> Lol, I am not angry nor self-hating due to Christianity nor the Bible.  I am happy with my Christianity and Bible.  It has creation science for S&T.  The latter is why I post here often; It's something to do for fun, gaining/sharing knowledge and entertainment.  Since last year, I started to think I am not making a dent to atheists and ags thinking, even with science backing the Bible and me up.  However, that is on the atheists and ags.
> 
> I don't think I follow anyone around.  OTOH, you post almost every time I post which just occured to me.  Moreover, you could not answer a basic question of why you follow me around.


Your conspiracy theories are funny.


----------



## james bond (Apr 16, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your conspiracy theories are funny.


I think you're following me because science backs up CREATION SCIENCE and NOT evolution.  You got it right in calling it EVILution.  That is your conspiracy.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> I think you're following me because science backs up CREATION SCIENCE and NOT evolution.  You got it right in calling it EVILution.  That is your conspiracy.


I think your conspiracy theories are an emotional crutch for the weak and fragile.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I think your conspiracy theories are an emotional crutch for the weak and fragile.


I'm the one that has science back up their thinking, so am the STRONG AND INDESTRUCTIBLE.  Who was and is INDESTRUCTIBLE?  Hint:  HAPPY EASTER SUNDAY!!!  This is why we SHOULD TEACH CREATION SCIENCE in public schools.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Adaptive evolution is not THE EVOLUTION taught to our children.  God created all life to be able to adapt to their natural surroundings, that ability to adapt is provided in all perfect strains of biological species..........WITHIN SPECIES, just as God detailed and Pasteur confirmed via Scientific Experimentation.  Life can only be reproduced via pre-existing biological life.....WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.  (Genesis 1:24-25)
> 
> The link you presented proves nothing........especially Darwinian evolution with one species evolving from a completely different species of life as claimed.   You present the species of Bird.....the finch and then claim that its evolution that makes the species adapt to its surrounding when in reality the DNA has been present all along that make those adaptations possible.....it is just dormant until required.  All men are born with mammary glands.......but they are not used because the male does not require it to reproduce.
> 
> ...


Of course they teach adaptive evolution. Where on earth did you go to school?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> I'm the one that has science back up their thinking, so am the STRONG AND INDESTRUCTIBLE.  Who was and is INDESTRUCTIBLE?  Hint:  HAPPY EASTER SUNDAY!!!  This is why we SHOULD TEACH CREATION SCIENCE in public schools.


Science does not back up Flat Earth thinking.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 17, 2022)

surada said:


> Of course they teach adaptive evolution. Where on earth did you go to school?



Deflect much?  Tell how a finch is not a bird and how no changes outside of species has ever been demonstrated by ADAPATIVE EVOLUTION.  Instead you deflect by repeating the same BS.  If you deny evolution outside of species is not taught to our children then you agree with CREATION SCIENCE.   As the Christ pointed out, "Ye blind guides, which strain on gnat, and swallow a camel." -- Matthew 23:24

Adaptive evolution totally agrees with the Bible.  All living things have the capacity to change with their environment...........WITHIN SPECIES.......but that is not what they teach.  If this is not true......man would have become extinct the same instant he encountered the common cold virus..........or the first time he encountered climate change or ecological disaster, the same for the animals, the same for plants/viruses ........bacteria germs.........

No.........they teach Darwinian Evolution where life evolved first from non-living mass/matter/energy into biological life with the capacity to change into totally different species of life (such as asexual reproduction changing into gender based reproduction, which begs to ask the question which evolved first the male or the female and how did the first example reproduce void of the other gender?) along with....the supposed ability to add new DNA information via mutation (When science proves that mutation corrupts or loses DNA information it does not add new information) with each supposed change......i.e., evolution. 

Abiogenesis is the 1st and most basic tenet of Darwinian Cult DOGMA.  If not......the alternative is CREATION SCIENCE.  Both cannot be true.  One is true or its negation is true, when you apply logic and the law of the excluded middle.  You cannot be a Christian and accept Abiogenesis as truth, if you do you are calling God a liar.  You either believe and accept the word of God or you reject it and promote an antichrist doctrine as truth.

Are you agreeing with Louis Pasteur and the Holy Scriptures?   Biological Life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species.  Or.......are you arguing that adaptive change within the same species is the same Evolution that must accept ABIOGENESIS as fact.....where life came from nature through the evolutionary process of ALL THINGS living coming from STAR DUST (consisting mostly of Helium and Hydrogen)........where all living things naturally evolved from the matter found to exist within stars?

Talk about unproven religious DOGMA...........simply being with 2 gases, helium and hydrogen.........leave alone for billions of years and you get YOU. 

You can't have your cake and eat it also............or you can't deny the law of the excluded middle.

Fact:  Mutation causes side effects such as deformities and diseases such as cancer.  They do not add information they take away from the healthy DNA.   Some idiots would suggestion that certain mutations can be positive instead of negative.  An example of such idiocy?  Sickle Cell Anaemia found in blacks.......the GOOD THING about such a mutation?  If helps combat malaria..........why?  Because of the abnormal red cells   That is an example of what lengths some will go to avoid the reality found to exist by the Pasteur experiments.  Life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Adapative evolution totally agrees with the Bible.  All living things have the capacity to change with their environment...........WITHIN SPECIES.......but that is not what they teach.
> 
> No.........they teach Darwinian Evolution where life evolved first from non-living mass/matter/energy into biological life with the capacity to change into different species of life....the the ability to add new DNA information via mutation with each supposed change......i.e., evolution.  Abiogenesis is the 1st and most basic tenet of Darwinian Cult DOGMA.  If not......the alternative is CREATION SCIENCE.  Both cannot be true.  One is true or its negation is true.  You cannot be a Christian and accept Abiogenesis as truth, if you do you are calling God a liar.
> 
> ...


Evolution is not Abiogenesis.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Science does not back up Flat Earth thinking.


Yep, science DOES NOT back you and the atheists up.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

surada said:


> Evolution is not Abiogenesis.


Abiogenesis never happens so nothing can lead to evolution.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> Abiogenesis never happens so nothing can lead to evolution.


You don't seem to know much about the theory of evolution. Would your faith collapse if you saw the creation myth as a morality tale?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> Yep, science DOES NOT back you and the atheists up.


You seem as confused as always.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> Abiogenesis never happens so nothing can lead to evolution.


We know with certainty that abiogenesis occurred.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You seem as confused as always.


It's not me who doesn't have the evidence to back their science nor believes in LIES.



Hollie said:


> We know with certainty that abiogenesis occurred.


LMAO.  It's your flat Earth atheist religion talking.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> It's not me who doesn't have the evidence to back their science nor believes in LIES.
> 
> 
> LMAO.  It's your flat Earth atheist religion talking.


Actually, it is you, the Flat Earther, who has no evidence for any of your gods.


I can see you're angry and reactive so let ignorance be your ''statement of faith''.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Actually, it is you, the Flat Earther, who has no evidence for any of your gods.
> 
> 
> I can see you're angry and reactive so let ignorance be your ''statement of faith''.


How can I be angry and reactive on Easter Sunday?  Christ has arisen, has foretold us of death and life again and given us His creation science.  It is HISTORICAL FACT now while evolution still wallows on flat Earth.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> How can I be angry and reactive on Easter Sunday?  Christ has arisen, has foretold us of death and life again and given us His creation science.  It is HISTORICAL FACT now while evolution still wallows on flat Earth.


Your ''HYSTERICAL PHACTS'' are not facts at all. ID'iot creationer science giving you a Flat Earth is not science.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

surada said:


> You don't seem to know much about the theory of evolution. Would your faith collapse if you saw the creation myth as a morality tale?


You stated evolution is NOT abiogenesis.  We know that abiogenesis does not happen because we only observe life from life and not life from non-life.  This leaves only creation as the explanation of the origins of life as explained in the Bible.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> You stated evolution is NOT abiogenesis.  We know that abiogenesis does not happen because we only observe life from life and not life from non-life.  This leaves only creation as the explanation of the origins of life as explained in the Bible.


Abiogenesis is a theory. But not addressed by Darwin's adaptive evolution. A duck doesn't become a bunny.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 17, 2022)

surada said:


> Evolution is not Abiogenesis.


If its not abiogenesis.......please explain where the 1st of each living creature came from, of course using the scientific method (since you profess to be working with science and its application of the laws of physics)......please present the experiment based upon the application of science that demonstrates how life evolved from the basic elements common to earth from non living to living.   Just one experiment where Evolution has reproduced life outside the species of like kind.......there is no evidence in the fossil record.  What is found in the fossil records are isolated examples of inbreeding humans who have incestuously reproduced within the same isolated family unit........and then called humans caught in transition from some lower lifeform.  Just like they find mutated fish and call it EVOLUTION because the fish is deformed.  ALL ARE FROM THE SPECIES OF MAN OR THE SPECIES OF FISH, ANIMAL....ETC.

Every few years the pseudo intellectuals claim to have found the missing link in one form or another.........but all turn out to be like the piltdown man.......misrepresented examples of all out fraud,  or simply the skeletal remains of an infirmed human being in a state of deformity caused by disease, such as LUCY was mispresented as a primate when in reality it turns out the remains are human.....turns out that Baboon bones where mixed in with human bones and misrepresented as LUCKY the missing link........who  has HUMAN TEETH and is found to be suffering from degenerative bone disease.   But.......still, they make the false claims of a transitory example of evolution.  The fraud never ceases as these fraudsters get their funding from WE THE PEOPLE via grants.  The grants dry up void of the Yellow Journalism that goes along with these con artists.

If you cannot not reproduce life void of pre-existing life within the same species..then you must (by the laws of logic and science accept CREATION as the cause to all biological life).....there are but 2 possibilities.  Life created itself from non living matter/mass/energy...........or it is the product of a SUPER (superior) Natural (to nature)  Cause.  Its called the law of causality.

I know that you know that Science cannot reproduce life void of pre-existing life within the same species.  If not.........show us any evolution where one creature (its called a creature for reason.......i.e., it was first created) has evolved to produce a totally new example of life form that is not common to that lineage of species (creatures).

Show me the evidence.  And do not say, 'LOOK SQUIRREL.....err........finch'.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> If its not abiogenesis.......please explain where the 1st of each living creature came from, of course using the scientific method (since you profess to be working with science and its application of the laws of physics)......please present the experiment based upon the application of science that demonstrates how life evolved from the basic elements common to earth from non living to living.   Just one experiment where Evolution has reproduced life outside the species of like kind.......there is no evidence in the fossil record.  What is found in the fossil records are isolated examples of inbreeding humans who have incestuously reproduced within the same isolated family unit........and then called humans caught in transition from some lower lifeform.  Just like they find mutated fish and call it EVOLUTION because the fish is deformed.  ALL ARE FROM THE SPECIES OF MAN OR THE SPECIES OF FISH, ANIMAL....ETC.
> 
> Every few years the pseudo intellectuals claim to have found the missing link in one form or another.........but all turn out to be like the piltdown man.......misrepresented examples of all out fraud,  of simply skeletal remains of an infirmed human being in a state of deformity.
> 
> ...


Darwin didn't address Abiogenesis. They don't know. What NEW life form?


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2022)

__





						Adaptive evolution
					

Definition noun A kind of evolution that involves evolutionary changes that are adaptive to a particular environment Supplement Evolution refers to the processes and events that take place over time illustrating the gradual progression of




					www.biologyonline.com


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

surada said:


> Abiogenesis is a theory. But not addressed by Darwin's adaptive evolution. A duck doesn't become a bunny.


Abiogenesis is fiction as we do not observe it at all.  Atheists and their scientists want it to help nature lead to evolution, but they can't have make believe and fairy tales in science.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

surada said:


> Abiogenesis is a theory. But not addressed by Darwin's adaptive evolution. A duck doesn't become a bunny.


Abiogenesis is fiction; It's not even science.  We have never observed life from non-life.  I'm not sure if anyone here advocates it.

OTOH, I LOVE TO TELL the atheists here that macroevolution is a LIE and beat them over the head with it.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2022)

james bond said:


> Abiogenesis is fiction; It's not even science.  We have never observed life from non-life.  I'm not sure if anyone here advocates it.
> 
> OTOH, I LOVE TO TELL the atheists here that adaptive evolution is a LIE and beat them over the head with it.


You're dumb as a stump.    Adaptive evolution.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2022)

surada said:


> You're dumb as a stump.    Adaptive evolution.


I corrected the adaptive to macroevolution.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 18, 2022)

surada said:


> Darwin didn't address Abiogenesis. They don't know. What NEW life form?



How many more times are you going to enjoy the taste of your own foot in your mouth? 

That's the problem with those less than reputable.....no?  They present "the human process of thinking (even if its wrong)" as science....when its nothing more than a personal philosophy.  Science can be tested......philosophy cannot.  You have been caught thinking LIE AFTER LIE.  Why?  You attempt to justify your indoctrination into the Darwinian Cult.
Darwin did not address ABIGENESIS?   As was stated previously.........your guild must consider blatant lying as righteous when used against the infidel.

According to you Darwin never propagated Abiogenesis?  Strange is it not that Darwin is quoted in his Origins of Species the hypothesis "........life could arise from non-organic matter in a "warm little pond".....









						Abiogenesis
					

In “Temple of Nature” (1806), Eramus Darwin wrote “…without parent by spontaneous birth rise the first specks of animate earth.” Eramus, like many great thinkers pondered the orig…




					biol4141.wordpress.com
				




And of course........a real scientist (one that works within the scope of the Scientific Method of Application)........Louis Pasteur contradicts this idiotic hypothesis through his experimentation concerning biological reproduction through "Biogenesis".....the accepted facts of science regarding biology.  Biological Life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life within the same species.  Its a fact of science that has never been falsified by the scientific method.

Darwin was nothing but a philosopher........a snake oil salesman that lived in the empty space between his ears.  While Pasteur offered very much advancement in the fields of biology, medicine and applied science.

Pasteur actually taught and instructed in the fields of   Physics, Chemistry, Held the position as Dean of Science at a major institute, Director of Science, taught geology.  Cured such disease as Rabies, purified our modern diary industries....etc.

What did Darwin do?  What contributions did he make to humanity?    Progressive politics based upon Human Secularism.  A dogmatic religion in and by itself, as its tenets can never be proven factual.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Darwin did not address ABIGENESIS?   As was stated previously.........your guild must consider blatant lying as righteous when used against the infidel.
> 
> According to you Darwin never propagated Abiogenesis?  Strange is it not that Darwin is quoted in his Origins of Species the hypothesis "........life could arise from non-organic matter in a "warm little pond".....
> 
> ...


Do you think that is the best of his theory?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 18, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Darwin did not address ABIGENESIS?   As was stated previously.........your guild must consider blatant lying as righteous when used against the infidel.
> 
> According to you Darwin never propagated Abiogenesis?  Strange is it not that Darwin is quoted in his Origins of Species the hypothesis "........life could arise from non-organic matter in a "warm little pond".....
> 
> ...


A favorite tactic of religious extremists is to cut and paste a snipped sentence from an entire paragraph and fraudulently represent that as a legitimate representation of the person they hope to misrepresent. 

The snipped "quote" you used to fraudulently misrepresent Darwin is one I've seen before. Here is the unedited version that was from a letter Darwin wrote to his longstanding friend, Joseph Hooker, on 1 February 1871:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [_sic_] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's _The Power of Place_, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]



Stop being a fraud. 

Thanks.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 18, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Abiogenesis​*In “Temple of Nature” (1806), Eramus Darwin wrote “…without parent by spontaneous birth rise the first specks of animate earth.” Eramus, like many great thinkers pondered the orig…*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Erasmus Darwin wrote" (1806) is NOT Charles Darwin who lived from (1809-1882) and wrote 50-60 years later.
`


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 18, 2022)

surada said:


> Do you think that is the best of his theory?


Again...........you lie, then you attempt to deflect. Which is the quint essential response presented by all Darwinian Cultists.  You present a Finch as proving evolution because it has adapted to its natural surroundings.   Is it evolution if I go from a clean shave type  warm climate into artic conditions.......and GROW A BEARD or longer hair on my head....etc.?   The DNA has been there all along, all it takes is the proper prompting by the correct Genes to adapt.  The DNA in Birds has been present all along to change in order to survive.......as evidenced by all the different sub species of the same root species.  Any way you slice up the information...........a BIRD is still a Bird, it has not changed from a reptile into a bird, no more than a cat can change into a dog.  Its all philosophy pretending to be science as the only place it exists is between ears of those foolish enough to accept something as a fact void of the evidence to prove it as such.

 There is no BEST anything about his idiotic "philosophy"......it cannot be supported by the Scientific Method as demonstrated by the great scientist ......Louis Pasteur.   There has never been Evolution as defined by Darwin OBSERVED IN NATURE.  While Pasteur's experiments concerning biological life have never been falsified by the Scientific Method.

Anyone that has posted on this thread.........show us the experiment that has confirmed Darwinian Evolution OUTSIDE OF SPECIES as claimed.  Anyone?  What you get is the usual response from "feigned laughter" because there is no defense of their argument to personal insults.  Its typical of the Philosophers that label themselves as "working with Science".   Nothing is presented but pretty, pretty adj. and adverbs  with a declaration that science works with such language as......Suggests, Points Too, Could Have, Might Have........etc.,  Real Objective Science you profess.

Its dogmatic comedy to watch you characters cry and whine like little children.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Again...........you lie, then you attempt to deflect. Which is the quint essential response presented by all Darwinian Cultists.  You present a Finch as proving evolution because it has adapted to its natural surroundings.   Is it evolution if I go from a clean shave type  warm climate into artic conditions.......and GROW A BEARD or longer hair on my head....etc.?   The DNA has been there all along, all it takes is the proper prompting by the correct Genes to adapt.  The DNA in Birds has been present all along to change in order to survive.......as evidenced by all the different sub species of the same root species.  Any way you slice up the information...........a BIRD is still a Bird, it has not changed from a reptile into a bird, no more than a cat can change into a dog.  Its all philosophy pretending to be science as the only place it exists is between ears of those foolish enough to accept something as a fact void of the evidence to prove it as such.
> 
> There is no BEST anything about his idiotic "philosophy"......it cannot be supported by the Scientific Method as demonstrated by the great scientist ......Louis Pasteur.   There has never been Evolution as defined by Darwin OBSERVED IN NATURE.  While Pasteur's experiments concerning biological life have never been falsified by the Scientific Method.
> 
> ...


I'm not a Darwin cultist. Birds lay eggs. So did dinosaurs and all of them weren't reptiles. Do you also believe humans lived hundreds of years and the earth is less than 6000 years old?


----------



## Dagosa (Apr 18, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> finch is still a finch .........all birds are birds, just like all cats are felines, etc. All k-9s are still canine regardless of how they have adapted, Wolves, Dogs, Coyotes, fox etc. are members of the "Canids" family species.


More made up shit. Notice you have no references from any science institute at all.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> More made up shit. Notice you have no references from any science institute at all.


A bird is a bird........and it takes a rocket scientist to know this?  Birds range in size from the humming bird to the Ostrich. The scientific name for ALL BIRDS is "Aves". Dumb Ass. Bird - Wikipedia

I can see why you subscribe to Darwinian Cultism.   It takes a gullible individual with no capacity for critical independent thinking and reasoning.  They require being told what to think.  I call your guild "SHEEPels".

FYI:   Louis Pasteur:  A real scientist, chemist, biologist.  That has never been falsified with his experiment on biological reproduction of life as coming only from pre-existing life within the same species.  Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia

As pointed out........your guild attempts to DEFLECT when they cannot defend their own arguments.  Where is the evidence of any Experiment that demonstrated life to evolve OUTSIDE of the same species, with life originating from non organic mass/matter?  Present the experiment within the Scientific method that falsifies Louis Pasteur and Biogenesis.

You could produce this evidence...thus, you deflect in the attempt within the sphere of your own stupidity by not knowing what the hell you are even arguing about.  Sheepel.    A bird is a bird.......all classified within the family of AVES.

With logic such as yours.....or rather the lack thereof........you would consider the growing of fingernails as a type of evolution.  Again........dumb ass.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 18, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Again...........you lie, then you attempt to deflect. Which is the quint essential response presented by all Darwinian Cultists.  You present a Finch as proving evolution because it has adapted to its natural surroundings.   Is it evolution if I go from a clean shave type  warm climate into artic conditions.......and GROW A BEARD or longer hair on my head....etc.?   The DNA has been there all along, all it takes is the proper prompting by the correct Genes to adapt.  The DNA in Birds has been present all along to change in order to survive.......as evidenced by all the different sub species of the same root species.  Any way you slice up the information...........a BIRD is still a Bird, it has not changed from a reptile into a bird, no more than a cat can change into a dog.  Its all philosophy pretending to be science as the only place it exists is between ears of those foolish enough to accept something as a fact void of the evidence to prove it as such.
> 
> There is no BEST anything about his idiotic "philosophy"......it cannot be supported by the Scientific Method as demonstrated by the great scientist ......Louis Pasteur.   There has never been Evolution as defined by Darwin OBSERVED IN NATURE.  While Pasteur's experiments concerning biological life have never been falsified by the Scientific Method.
> 
> ...


Instead of just screeching out ID’iot creationer nonsense, you might want to offer some facts.

Transitional fossils from reptiles to birds are abundant.





__





						CC214:  Transitional Birds
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				





Claim CC214:​There are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds.
Source:​Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, 75.
Response:​
Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as _Allosaurus_) and modern birds:

_Sinosauropteryx prima_. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs _Ornitholestes_ and _Compsognathus_ (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).


Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur _Caudipteryx_ had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur _Beipiaosaurus_ (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).


Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds.  _Sinovenator_, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to _Archaeopteryx_ (Xu et al. 2002).  _Byronosaurus_, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). _Microraptor_, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003)._Sinornithosaurus_ also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).


_Protarchaeopteryx_, alvarezsaurids, _Yixianosaurus_ and _Avimimus_. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are.  _Protarchaeopteryx_ has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). _Yixianosaurus_ has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and _Avimimus_ (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.


_Archaeopteryx_. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).


_Shenzhouraptor_ (Zhou and Zhang 2002), _Rahonavis_ (Forster et al. 1998), _Yandangornis_ and _Jixiangornis_. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than _Archaeopteryx_, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.


_Sapeornis_ (Zhou and Zhang 2003), _Omnivoropteryx_, and confuciusornithids (e.g., _Confuciusornis_ and _Changchengornis_; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).


Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as _Sinornis_ (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), _Gobipteryx_ (Chiappe et al. 2001), and _Protopteryx_ (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.


_Patagopteryx_, _Apsaravis_, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.


_Hesperornis_, _Ichthyornis_, _Gansus_, and _Limenavis_. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.


Modern birds. 



As to Pasteur, you simply don’t know what you’re screeching about. Louis Pasteur disproved the "spontaneous generation" of whole complex organisms (particularly flies & maggots) at one shot. His results are not applicable to the science of abiogenesis. Pasteur dealt only with large fully-formed organisms, whereas abiogenesis deals with the smallest possible molecular life forms.  Your Pasteur argument against abiogenesis has now been falsified.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 18, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Instead of just screeching out ID’iot creationer nonsense, you might want to offer some facts.
> 
> Transitional fossils from reptiles to birds are abundant.
> 
> ...




Yeah..........that proves it.  SIMILAR/BIRDLIKE/UNCERTAIN PLACEMENT/BIRD LIKE FEATURES/ DEFINED AS A BIRD BUT IS ACTUALLY LESS BIRDLIKE is very objective evidence.  LMAO    Where is the evidence?  Its all subjective, conjecture, speculation and assumptions void of any physical evidence.

The entire........Hypothesis, as that is what you are presenting, Hypothesis (philosophy) dressed as science.  Again.......show me the experiment that falsifies Louis Pasteur.  Bull Shit does not count as evidence.

And then prove through the scientific method that dino's are actually warm blooded creatures not cold blooded......and explain how a cold blooded creature can suddenly become a warm blooded creature.

Surf the web again for some false intelligence concerning the fact of Dino's being warm blooded or cold blooded.......the new spin is......they were neither, they were in the middle.  Why?  To justify the hypothesis that dino's evolved into BIRDS.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 18, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Yeah..........that proves it.  SIMILAR/BIRDLIKE/UNCERTAIN PLACEMENT/BIRD LIKE FEATURES/ DEFINED AS A BIRD BUT IS ACTUALLY LESS BIRDLIKE is very objective evidence.  LMAO    Where is the evidence?  Its all subjective, conjecture, speculation and assumptions void of any physical evidence.
> 
> The entire........Hypothesis, as that is what you are presenting, Hypothesis (philosophy) dressed as science.  Again.......show me the experiment that falsifies Louis Pasteur.  Bull Shit does not count as evidence.
> 
> And then prove through the scientific method that dino's are actually warm blooded creatures not cold blooded......and explain how a cold blooded creature can suddenly become a warm blooded creature.



Fossil evidence isn’t hypothesis. 

Otherwise, your shrill screeching is just the standard response that anyone can read at any of the ID’iot creationer ministries. Your flaming tirades are absent fact or evidence.


----------



## james bond (Apr 18, 2022)

surada said:


> Abiogenesis is a theory.


You're the one dumb as a stump.  Abiogenesis was disproved by the Miller-Urey experiment.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2022)

james bond said:


> You're the one dumb as a stump.  Abiogenesis was disproved by the Miller-Urey experiment.


False. You don't understand,


----------



## Dagosa (Apr 19, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> A bird is a bird........and it takes a rocket scientist to know this?  Birds range in size from the humming bird to the Ostrich. The scientific name for ALL BIRDS is "Aves". Dumb Ass. Bird - Wikipedia
> 
> I can see why you subscribe to Darwinian Cultism.   It takes a gullible individual with no capacity for critical independent thinking and reasoning.  They require being told what to think.  I call your guild "SHEEPels".
> 
> ...


Wow. You’re the dumb ass using the quotes of a scientist that lived nearly 200 years ago. All you need to do is research the findings of 3400 accredited university web sites. But no, make the dumbest uninformed posts that have little to do with science today. Why don’t you just reference a few reliable researchers  instead of a 200 year old corpse. May be you never went to school ? The guy who lives with the science  of the 1850’s. It has to be embarrassing for you.
A bird is a bird…whatever that means.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2022)

Hollie said:


> False. You don't understand,


You didn't know that it was _biogenesis_.  I just farked you up beyond belief in front of everyone here.

Great way to start the day.  Woo hoo!!!


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2022)

james bond said:


> You didn't know that it was _biogenesis_.  I just farked you up beyond belief in front of everyone here.
> 
> Great way to start the day.  Woo hoo!!!


You should make an attempt to understand the terms you copy and paste.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You should make an attempt to understand the terms you copy and paste.


If I was _embarrassed_ like the way I farked you up beyond belief with BIOGENESIS over abio in front of everyone here, then I would retire from USMB. You should quit while you are way behind in the science forum.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2022)

james bond said:


> If I was _embarrassed_ like the way I farked you up beyond belief with BIOGENESIS over abio in front of everyone here, then I would retire from USMB. You should quit while you are way behind in the science forum.


You should be _embarrassed_ at your use of terms you don't understand.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You should be _embarrassed_ at your use of terms you don't understand.


You are a total embarrassment in the science forum.  Can you even explain what the Miller-Urey experiment was and what happened?

You clearly did not understand Louis Pasteur's experiments which demonstrated biogenesis.  OTOH, there are NO EXPERIMENTS THAT DEMONSTRATE ABIOGENESIS.  Miller-Urey demonstrated that abiogenesis does not happen -- Miller-Urey experiment - Conservapedia.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2022)

james bond said:


> You are a total embarrassment in the science forum.  Can you even explain what the Miller-Urey experiment was and what happened?
> 
> You clearly did not understand Louis Pasteur's experiments which demonstrated biogenesis.  OTOH, there are NO EXPERIMENTS THAT DEMONSTRATE ABIOGENESIS.  Miller-Urey demonstrated that abiogenesis does not happen -- Miller-Urey experiment - Conservapedia.


I explained the Miller-Urey experiment to you and you were left completely befuddled. You seem to think it somehow proved your various gods and it did nothing like that.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I explained the Miller-Urey experiment to you and you were left completely befuddled. You seem to think it somehow proved your various gods and it did nothing like that.


Now, you're reduced to making excuses as you were embarrassed beyond belief by me this morning over Miller-Urey and more.  It's no wonder you want to move on from the butt whipping I gave you over Miller-Urey.  And it's not even lunchtime yet lol.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2022)

james bond said:


> Now, you're reduced to making excuses as you were embarrassed beyond belief by me this morning over Miller-Urey and more.  It's no wonder you want to move on from the butt whipping I gave you over Miller-Urey.  And it's not even lunchtime yet lol.


I can see you're embarrassed at having not understood what you cut and pasted. You can retreat to the charlatans at your creationer ministries but that's where you false notions came from.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Apr 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wow. You’re the dumb ass using the quotes of a scientist that lived nearly 200 years ago. All you need to do is research the findings of 3400 accredited university web sites. But no, make the dumbest uninformed posts that have little to do with science today. Why don’t you just reference a few reliable researchers  instead of a 200 year old corpse. May be you never went to school ? The guy who lives with the science  of the 1850’s. It has to be embarrassing for you.
> A bird is a bird…whatever that means.


Dumb Ass.  Truth, just like FACTS "do not evolve".  What was true, thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago......or yesterday will be just as true, tomorrow or thousands of years into the future.......or it was never true to begin with.

To refute this scientist who used the scientific method of Observation, Reproducible, and consistent evidences........simply present the experiment TODAY, now, that falsifies this Scientist from years ago.  The simple fact is YOU CANNOT, thus the deflection and ad hominem attacks.

Now simply look at your ideolog concerning your supposed scientific tenets.   Your guilt must accept lies as facts within the scope of a hypothesis or theory.

You accept BULLSHIT AS TRUTH.

Example:  Archaeology and fossils.   The word Dinosaur actually means "terrible LIZARD"...........your guild promoted "as truth", as a FACT of science that Dinosaurs were COLD BLOODED animals.  Today......that truth (as you are promoting the same pseudo science as truth today)......has EVOLVED in order to make the supposed Hypothesis acceptable....birds are descendant and present proof of evolution...of the DINOSAUR who are no longer COLD BLOOD but........somewhere in the middle of the 2 species...neither warm blooded or cold blooded.

And you can't even get any 2 supposed men of science to agree..........were dino's warm blood or cold blooded?  Truth does not CONFLICT.

Someone on this board parroted information stating that they have PROOF that birds evolved from dinosaurs........and they presented nothing but suggestions, opinions, speculations, and conjectures as FACT.

The fact is according to your own government sources.   NO one really knows what type of blood flowed through the systems of these animals/reptiles/Birds.........hell they can't even make up their minds how to classify these creatures with any certainty....why?  The basic tenet of Applying Science to this quest is impossible.   OBSERVATION/PREPRODUTION


Dagosa said:


> Wow. You’re the dumb ass using the quotes of a scientist that lived nearly 200 years ago. All you need to do is research the findings of 3400 accredited university web sites. But no, make the dumbest uninformed posts that have little to do with science today. Why don’t you just reference a few reliable researchers  instead of a 200 year old corpse. May be you never went to school ? The guy who lives with the science  of the 1850’s. It has to be embarrassing for you.
> A bird is a bird…whatever that means.



AGAIN........DUMB ASS
Dumb Ass repeated.   A fact does not evolve, what was a fact of science thousands of years ago.......is still a fact of science today.  If not, it was never a fact of science.  Simply refute and falsify the Pasteur experiments.  What.......the RABIES cure is not used today?  You don't drink pasteurized milk today?  Animals are still dying of Anthrax and other diseases today....because the facts that made these great discoveries possible are now hundreds of years old?  Again.......dumb ass.

I can prove that you accept Bullshit as a fact.......its simple.

Your guild cannot even agree among themselves whether dinosaurs (the word actually means terrible lizard) where warm blooded or cold blooded..........yet you present suggestions, speculations, conjectures, and assumptions as FACTS.......in the claim that Birds have evolved from Dinosaurs (terrible lizards).  When in reality the only you can observe are BONES and imprints on the stone of feathers of some creature that lived in antiquity and make the CLAIM.......see? they are changing into birds.   Void of any actual observed evidence that these creatures have the common traits of the modern birds.  You see feathers and forget the other traits that are common to all birds............besides feathers.    TOOTHLESS BEAKED JAWS, LIGHT WEIGHT, WARM BLOODED....etc.   Animals that were first classified as cold blooded........weighing TONS instead of pounds ........suddenly decided to grow feathers and evolve into a limbo creature that is neither cold blooded nor warm blooded, because its required THINKING in order to accept these idiotic theories as truth.

Your own government knows the truth:  No one knows nor can agree if dinosaurs where warm blooded or cold blooded.



			https://www.usgs.gov./faqs/were-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-or-cold-blooded
		


You attempt to construct an Empire State Like structure..........without even having a Foundational FACT available.  You just run with speculations, conjectures, assumptions, opinions, as valid truths of science.  Reality:  You accept philosophy (thought projection) in place of Applied Science and the laws of physics. 

More Bullshit accepted by you?  The age of the earth appears to have EVOLVED along with your supposed science.   50 years ago the age of the earth promoted in our schools as a FACT OF SCIENCE.........the age of the earth being taught as a truth?  about 1 billion years.......today that truth has (wink, wink) evolved to be 4.54 (presented as exact down to the percentile).  Wow!  Over the span of my lifetime..........the earth has aged BILLIONS OF YEARS.  Must be in some type of time warp.  Beam me SCOTTIE.


----------



## Dagosa (Apr 21, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Dumb Ass.  Truth, just like FACTS "do not evolve".  What was true, thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago......or yesterday will be just as true, tomorrow or thousands of years into the future.......or it was never true to begin with.
> 
> To refute this scientist who used the scientific method of Observation, Reproducible, and consistent evidences........simply present the experiment TODAY, now, that falsifies this Scientist from years ago.  The simple fact is YOU CANNOT, thus the deflection and ad hominem attacks.
> 
> ...


Save yourself some time. If you think anyone reads your BS ramblings more then a few lines, you live in a dream world. Really, there aren’t any sane people who  give a shit about your copy pasting from conservative rags.

 . You’re science illiteracy is apparent. There are no long term facts in science foolish, just long term observations and explanations based upon observed  evidence and trials and experiments. Literally everything in science is subject to  alteration as new evidence is derived . You’re obvious home schooling  omitted any mention of science. Go to a public library or check the web sites of any of 3400 legitimate sources not titled Heritage or Fix News.


----------

