Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.

Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.

Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?

The evidence is sketchy at best. Anyway, you totally missed the point. You said they became extinct because of it but you really have no clue why they became exinct and you can no more prove that was the reason than I can prove there is a God.

 

[UltimateReality]

"On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin

As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".

Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.

Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.

Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!

 

[UltimateReality]

One more thing which is so utterly stupid about Dawin's statement I quoted above, if the changes are gradual over millions of years, how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species? How does natural selection tell them apart? Ummm, let's see. On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend. Or maybe he had a cc less brain matter than his more advanced friend, causing them to go Ape$%# and kill him.

How can smart human beings not see the absolute stupidity of these claims? Mass brainwashing could be the only answer. You guys are on a ship of fools and you are heading in to shore so you can wave at your family. Pure stupidity.

Here it is again for those less advanced homo sapiens. Changes happen in really, really tiny increments over really really really long periods of time but Natural Selection is able to detect these very, very, very subtle changes and throws away the ones it doesn't want and keeps the ones it does, over millions and millions of years of very, very, very tiny RANDOM POSITIVE mutations.

 

[LOki]

"On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin

As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".

Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.

Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.

Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!

You certainly do.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.

Yeah, cause Darwin didn't say everything that I asserted in the Origin of the Species. The only ignorant one here is you.

Instead of an intelligent response, you respond with name calling and un-substantiated assertions. Also, your silence on my post about every living thing alive today having come from a "live" cell just like itself speaks volumes. The fact that you think the double-helix just happened, tells me you fall in with the others who have no grasp of logic or reasoning, blind in your atheistic religion of materialism, unable to grasp any real scientific concepts.

 

[UltimateReality]

Dawin's Heretic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxvAVln6HLI]Darwin's Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design? - YouTube[/ame]

Funny how Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and the ignorant Darwinists brought the "spontaneous generation" theory back to life. DNA just spontaneously generated itself. And you say ID lacks science? What a joke.

 

[ilia25]

Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.

Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?

The evidence is sketchy at best. Anyway, you totally missed the point. You said they became extinct because of it but you really have no clue why they became exinct and you can no more prove that was the reason than I can prove there is a God.

There is enough of evidence that Neanderthals were directly competing with modern humans, and that gives a perfect explanation why the went extinct. You, of course, have to keep denying the obvious facts, because this is the only way to deny the Theory of Evolution.

 

[ilia25]

DNA just spontaneously generated itself.

No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.

 

[Montrovant]

One more thing which is so utterly stupid about Dawin's statement I quoted above, if the changes are gradual over millions of years, how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species? How does natural selection tell them apart? Ummm, let's see. On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend. Or maybe he had a cc less brain matter than his more advanced friend, causing them to go Ape$%# and kill him.

How can smart human beings not see the absolute stupidity of these claims? Mass brainwashing could be the only answer. You guys are on a ship of fools and you are heading in to shore so you can wave at your family. Pure stupidity.

Here it is again for those less advanced homo sapiens. Changes happen in really, really tiny increments over really really really long periods of time but Natural Selection is able to detect these very, very, very subtle changes and throws away the ones it doesn't want and keeps the ones it does, over millions and millions of years of very, very, very tiny RANDOM POSITIVE mutations.

Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions.

First, natural selection is not an intelligence. It does not detect anything. It does not throw things away or keep anything. It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not. It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence. To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection. To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.

Whether evolutionary theory is correct or not, your arguments against it in this post are nothing but foolishness. Rather than making any point about why evolution is incorrect, you are probably more likely to lead anyone reading to the conclusion they are better off assuming anything you say is wrong.

 

[ilia25]

how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species?

They do not kill off the unchanged species, at least not directly. But the offspring of the unchanged species has a VERY VERY slightly lower chance of surviving. Or they produce slightly less offspring. Over time (thousand generations) these factors lead to a complete replacement of the original species with the more advanced ones.

 

[UltimateReality]

DNA just spontaneously generated itself.

No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.

So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.

 

[UltimateReality]

Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions..

This is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call numerous holes being punched in the theory by modern scientific discoveries progression.

First, natural selection is not an intelligence. It does not detect anything. It does not throw things away or keep anything. It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not. It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence. To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.

The last two words here aptly describe your total inability to grasp the sarcastic point I was making about Natural Selection, i.e., the assertion by Darwinists it is some personified force capable of miracles. I was just regurgitating the idiotic claims of Darwinists regarding NS.

Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection. To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.

Since when is a larger brain a cosmetic change??? Complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory? Really. So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone? Come on man, are you that dense?? According to TOE, even though we don't have any evidence of this transitional hominid, are you claiming there were no intermediate steps? I think in your assertion of my so called foolishness and ignorance, someone other than me has been revealed as the real fool.

Skhul and Qafzeh hominids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neadertal

Here is an article that avoids the ASSumptive language of you clowns here and correctly uses terms like "may have" and "probably", since all the things you all state as fact can't be proven by the evidence at hand.

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0006821.html

You can deny the Bible, but don't you think it odd it has not really been contradicted by science? I think you will find that very few Christians subscribe to the "young earth" theory. Moses is the widely accepted author of Genesis. The Creation story was more than likely handed down by the oral tradition for thousands of years (maybe even 200,000 years) and Moses was just the first guy to write the stories passed down by the elders down on paper...

"Analysis of DNA in recent human populations suggests that H. sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa from a single female ancestor, ‘Eve’."

The whole lucy wishful thinking fiasco makes me wonder if an marterialistic paleontologists can be trusted not to fill in the blanks with info that supports their dying theory.

http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/human_evolution_error.php

 

[ilia25]

DNA just spontaneously generated itself.

No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.

So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.

Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.

 

[LOki]

Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.

Yeah, cause Darwin didn't say everything that I asserted in the Origin of the Species. The only ignorant one here is you.

See? You ARE an idiot.

Instead of an intelligent response, you respond with name calling and un-substantiated assertions.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]Oh yes. Your point about dogs always producing dogs ... [/ame]
Your position has already been thoroughly punked, as have been your disingenuous tactics ... Youwerecreated took the beating for you.

Also, your silence on my post about every living thing alive today having come from a "live" cell just like itself speaks volumes.

Right. I just don't have time to address EVERY misrepresentation and misconception every member of your retarded tribe posts.

The fact that you think the double-helix just happened, tells me you fall in with the others who have no grasp of logic or reasoning, blind in your atheistic religion of materialism, unable to grasp any real scientific concepts.

I don't "... think the double-helix just happened." No one does ... except in the strawman fantasies of creationists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're just really bad at that, aren't you?

The true Ideologue is the one that continues to push his Ideology even though evidence proves him wrong. That would be you and ones like you.

HAHAHA! You have been proven wrong at every turn, and have failed to bring any evidence that proves any claim I have made wrong. What a douche!

Dreamer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.

Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.

Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.

Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?

You are missing the point. I know that the Bible -- or, rather, its loose enough interpretation -- can explain Neanderthals and anything else we know about the world around us. And not a long time ago it was the best explanation -- but not anymore.

The goal of the Theory of Evolution is to explain how the humans first appeared on this planet without involving God and his miracles. And it has been hugely successful at that -- and in particular thanks to finding the remains of Neanderthals and other transitional species. And because of the success of the Theory of Evolution we have more reasons to believe that the Bible is not a divine gift, but a collections of myth and stories written by ancient people.

That is the problem,your presuppositions eliminate the possibility of the designer. What if you are wrong then your theory is wrong.You can argue agains't design all you want but that is what is seen. Too many coincedences for me to hold on to the theory of Macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin

As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".

Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.

Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.

Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!

You certainly do.

Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.

 

[Youwerecreated]

DNA just spontaneously generated itself.

No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.

Prove it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

One more thing which is so utterly stupid about Dawin's statement I quoted above, if the changes are gradual over millions of years, how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species? How does natural selection tell them apart? Ummm, let's see. On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend. Or maybe he had a cc less brain matter than his more advanced friend, causing them to go Ape$%# and kill him.

How can smart human beings not see the absolute stupidity of these claims? Mass brainwashing could be the only answer. You guys are on a ship of fools and you are heading in to shore so you can wave at your family. Pure stupidity.

Here it is again for those less advanced homo sapiens. Changes happen in really, really tiny increments over really really really long periods of time but Natural Selection is able to detect these very, very, very subtle changes and throws away the ones it doesn't want and keeps the ones it does, over millions and millions of years of very, very, very tiny RANDOM POSITIVE mutations.

Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions.

First, natural selection is not an intelligence. It does not detect anything. It does not throw things away or keep anything. It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not. It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence. To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection. To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.

Whether evolutionary theory is correct or not, your arguments against it in this post are nothing but foolishness. Rather than making any point about why evolution is incorrect, you are probably more likely to lead anyone reading to the conclusion they are better off assuming anything you say is wrong.

Come on now humans are the ultimate mutation it needed a thinking process to go from apes to humans ,get real.

 

[LOki]

"On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin

As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".

Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.

Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.

Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!

You certainly do.

Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.

A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."