Did evolution happen ?

[WheelieAddict]

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?

We are still evolving you donut.

 

[james bond]

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?

We are still evolving you donut.

This is a stupid AF argument. The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today. If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either. Other wise, they de-evolved. Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.

 

[Hollie]

You do not understand probabilities

No, it is you who doesn't understand probabilities. Nor do the YEC bloggers you plagiarize, when they reiterate hoyle's fallacy ad nauseum.

You double that error when you accidentally conflate the madeup "probability" (that isn't) of the existence of humans exactly as they are today with the probability of abiogenesis occuring elsewhere in the universe. It's useless, specious nonsense, and you guys embarrass yourselves with it every time.

I understand probabilities just fine. Took a course at my alma mater. It is you who doesn't understand probabilities and how it is used. Moreover, you are wrong about it being related to YEC bloggers. I just told you that I learned it during college and am using it now. Thus, the probability of finding aliens in the future is practically zero. Now, NASA is looking for evidence of past life, as well. Do we use probabilities in this case?

What about abiogenesis occurring? This is zero because Louis Pasteur showed only life begats life in his famous experiment. The probability is worse than aliens. Thus, you better hope aliens populated this planet.

Finally, the creation scientists got admission from secular ones that "life is rare." Why don't you just admit no aliens and no abiogenesis?

Actually, you don't understand probabilities. You also don't understand that the nonsense you cut and paste from bible ministries makes you an accomplice to fraud.

Here's a lesson in probabilities for you: "Mum gives birth to SIX babies in just nine minutes defying one in 4.7 billion odds". You can find the article by doing your own search. With your belief in a 6,000 year old earth, That's presents you with a real problem. For a 4.7 billion +/- year old earth, evolutionary process and "chance" have real options.




What's funny is that your alma mater is nothing more than the silly Watchtower Bible Society. Regarding your false claim in connection with Pasteur, you wrote:

Louis Pasteur showed only life begats life in his famous experiment

Here's where that fraud came from:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

What your fraud fails to identify is that the spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism - how cool is that?. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


Take some time to learn the consequences of being an accomplice to fraud.

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative



Let's address your other fraud, shall we?
You wrote;

Finally, the creation scientists got admission from secular ones that "life is rare".

Religious fundamentalists have no information about life beyond our planet or solar system. Religious fundamentalists are not doing research or publishing in peer reviewed papers. Your nonsense claims are utterly unsupported and lack corroboration.

Your basic arguments are ad hominem attacks that I am a fraud and my arguments are fraudulent. And then you take my words and start adding whatever stereotypes and looney tunes dark fantasies that you have for religion. This is science that we are talking about.

And what good is probability if the event already happened? You cannot comprehend this and give ridiculous explanations for probability.

Anyway, with some professional treatment, perhaps you can recover. Maybe believing in God and praying to him for help with your mental condition will change your life.

Your basic argument is to revile knowledge and learning. I countered your comments with sources that are fraudulent because they are religious claims and not supported by fact.

You are angry and emotive because your fraudulent claims are countered with reason and rationality.

I hope you will reflect on the above and pray for forgiveness from your gods.

 

[Hollie]

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?

We are still evolving you donut.

This is a stupid AF argument. The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today. If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either. Other wise, they de-evolved. Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.

You should avoid your silly “according to Darwin” claims because they are false.

Evolution does not proceed as your fundamentalist ministries claim. Biological evolution does not move from along a linear path as claimed by the charlatans at creation.com.

 

[WheelieAddict]

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?

We are still evolving you donut.

This is a stupid AF argument. The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today. If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either. Other wise, they de-evolved. Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.

the time scale is over tens of thousands of years, and that's just since the last ice age donut

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Buh, buh, buh

Nope, sorry weenie, no amount of slithering and mincing and public masurbation is going to change what the scoreboard says. But you are free to be that retard running around the empty arena, claiming victory after losing the big game by 1000 points. And we all know you will.

 

[james bond]

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?

We are still evolving you donut.

This is a stupid AF argument. The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today. If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either. Other wise, they de-evolved. Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.

the time scale is over tens of thousands of years, and that's just since the last ice age donut

Time scale? Over tens of thousands of year? Last ice age? Why don't you explain?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory,"

Haha...fucking moron...might as well announce to the world you know less than nothing about evolution...

 

[james bond]

Buh, buh, buh

Nope, sorry weenie, no amount of slithering and mincing and public masurbation is going to change what the scoreboard says. But you are free to be that retard running around the empty arena, claiming victory after losing the big game by 1000 points. And we all know you will.

My lead over you is a 1000+ points already. You got docked for ad hominem attacks. Basically, that was your only argument. You presented no science in the S&T forum and what little you gave turned out to be wrong such as abiogenesis, aliens, re-engineering chickens into dinosaurs, humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. What we discovered is Darwin's ideas led to racism of the worst kind, the holocaust and more. For example, how it shows a black man as part of human evolution. Even the title of Darwin's Origin of Species is racist -- On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. No wonder a science book became a best seller and made white man Darwin rich.

 

[james bond]

"The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory,"

"According to Darwin." His theories have pretty much all have been debunked. Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.

The monkeys did not even lose their tails. They have to become anthropoidea from primates first according to common ancestor descent. There is no fossil evidence for this. Besides the chronological layers are suspicious. The only explanation or argument we get is it had to do with the hip and leg bone changes. No one really believes in Lucy (Au. afarensis) as it was put together from several different animals. The bones were found miles apart in different levels of depth. Suffice to say, inconclusive and people don't buy it. When they toured Lucy's fossils around, the museums lost big money. They made up a phoney excuse that the fossils were too valuable so mothballed it back to Ethiopia never to see the light of day again. There should be hundreds, if not thousands, of these fossils if the australopiticines were bipedal. We should have a fairly good agreement on what these creatures looked like from artists' renditions. However, the drawings are different and all over the place. Most look like chimpanzees or chimp hybrids. Thus, if the key to the past is the present, then we find that chimpanzees or even apes are not fully bipedal.

How many points do I get for this slam dunk in your face? It's worth 2, but because of the agility and showmanship (and it's over a villain) it should be worth 3. I'll accept 2 because the villain keeps losing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"According to Darwin." His theories have pretty much all have been debunked.

Not only is the quote you attributed to darwins thought a lie, it is also a lie thay all of his theories have been debunked. Damn you are stupid. And a huge liar. You are making baby jesus cry with your stupidity and dishonesty.

 

[alang1216]

Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.

I presume you are talking about social insects or the like. In these cases the individuals all share many genes so the cooperation ensures the genes a better chance at survival. We are all little more than vessels for our genes, slavishly carrying them into the future. It is their survival that matters, not ours. And that is the meaning of life.

 

[james bond]

"According to Darwin." His theories have pretty much all have been debunked.

Not only is the quote you attributed to darwins thought a lie, it is also a lie thay all of his theories have been debunked. Damn you are stupid. And a huge liar. You are making baby jesus cry with your stupidity and dishonesty.

Then which thoughts or ideas of his has panned out? Which ones are observable, testable and falsifiable?

Do your own thinking and explanation as the ones provided by museums have been shown to be bogus. For example, secular scientists found "life is rare." Shouldn't it be happening all over the place according to Darwin? We do not find transitional fossils nor evidence of modification by descent. Everything is done to make the facts fit ToE instead of ToE to fit the facts.

How Common is Life?

 

[WheelieAddict]

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?

We are still evolving you donut.

This is a stupid AF argument. The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today. If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either. Other wise, they de-evolved. Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.

the time scale is over tens of thousands of years, and that's just since the last ice age donut

Time scale? Over tens of thousands of year? Last ice age? Why don't you explain?

Evolution, or do you think humans were just placed here at your convenience.

 

[james bond]

Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.

I presume you are talking about social insects or the like. In these cases the individuals all share many genes so the cooperation ensures the genes a better chance at survival. We are all little more than vessels for our genes, slavishly carrying them into the future. It is their survival that matters, not ours. And that is the meaning of life.

There is no social gene in insects or any other animal. Gene regulation is performed through several mechanisms by living cells to control the process by which the information encoded in a gene is converted into protein or some other form of RNA. IOW individual cells use the information in genes to produce product. It does not produce behavior.

To move forward, it's not just insects, but other animals, too. The atheist scientists who believed in Darwin found out he was wrong in that similar creatures would compete with each other for food. It's not just a dog eat dog world for humans in business, sports, politics or other endeavors. Sure, there is competing, winner take all or survival of the fittest behavior no doubt, but that isn't all there is.

 

[james bond]

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?

We are still evolving you donut.

This is a stupid AF argument. The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today. If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either. Other wise, they de-evolved. Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.

the time scale is over tens of thousands of years, and that's just since the last ice age donut

Time scale? Over tens of thousands of year? Last ice age? Why don't you explain?

Evolution, or do you think humans were just placed here at your convenience.

You can't just say thus evolution as that which was the cause. It's fallacy of assumption. You just assumed that which you were trying to show.

Humans were placed here for God's enjoyment in creation. It's not that we are robots or his slaves, but free thinking and free willed individuals. However, this led to disobedience in no time and so we are being segregated into those who will live forever in paradise and those who will be spiritually dead. There is complexity in the design although the choice is simple. One can think of it as choosing evolution means disobeying God, stating he does not exist and death of our spiritually perfect body. Or choosing he exists, that Jesus will save, i.e. cleanse us and lead us to eternal spiritual life. Isn't this the case?.

 

[Hollie]

"The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory,"

"According to Darwin." His theories have pretty much all have been debunked. Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.

The monkeys did not even lose their tails. They have to become anthropoidea from primates first according to common ancestor descent. There is no fossil evidence for this. Besides the chronological layers are suspicious. The only explanation or argument we get is it had to do with the hip and leg bone changes. No one really believes in Lucy (Au. afarensis) as it was put together from several different animals. The bones were found miles apart in different levels of depth. Suffice to say, inconclusive and people don't buy it. When they toured Lucy's fossils around, the museums lost big money. They made up a phoney excuse that the fossils were too valuable so mothballed it back to Ethiopia never to see the light of day again. There should be hundreds, if not thousands, of these fossils if the australopiticines were bipedal. We should have a fairly good agreement on what these creatures looked like from artists' renditions. However, the drawings are different and all over the place. Most look like chimpanzees or chimp hybrids. Thus, if the key to the past is the present, then we find that chimpanzees or even apes are not fully bipedal.

How many points do I get for this slam dunk in your face? It's worth 2, but because of the agility and showmanship (and it's over a villain) it should be worth 3. I'll accept 2 because the villain keeps losing.

How many points do you believe you deserve for false and ignorant statements?

You claim Darwin’s theories have been debunked but you can't provide a single instance. That’s pretty typical in my experience. Religious zealots calling themselves “creationists” never provide any valid points at all. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in creationist rhetoric, but the actual content very rarely includes anything at all of genuine scientific interest. If you have a specific valid point in mind, you might like to bring it to the attention of those who can address your ignorance.

Evolution has been observed. The mechanisms are well described. No scientific or educational institution doubts the occurrence of evolution (except those with a competing religious dogma to protect). There is every reason to accept evolution, and no good reason to reject it. The fabricated, mistake-filled "evidence" of fundamentalist creationism that is supposed to "overturn evolution" does no damage to evolution, no matter how loudly they shout it.

In fact, as time goes on and the methods for testing evolutionary science become more exacting, the facts demonstrating evolution become better defined.

 

[Hollie]

We are still evolving you donut.

This is a stupid AF argument. The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today. If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either. Other wise, they de-evolved. Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.

the time scale is over tens of thousands of years, and that's just since the last ice age donut

Time scale? Over tens of thousands of year? Last ice age? Why don't you explain?

Evolution, or do you think humans were just placed here at your convenience.

You can't just say thus evolution as that which was the cause. It's fallacy of assumption. You just assumed that which you were trying to show.

Humans were placed here for God's enjoyment in creation. It's not that we are robots or his slaves, but free thinking and free willed individuals. However, this led to disobedience in no time and so we are being segregated into those who will live forever in paradise and those who will be spiritually dead. There is complexity in the design although the choice is simple. One can think of it as choosing evolution means disobeying God, stating he does not exist and death of our spiritually perfect body. Or choosing he exists, that Jesus will save, i.e. cleanse us and lead us to eternal spiritual life. Isn't this the case?.

As the self-entitled spokes-jerk for the gods, tell us how you know humans were placed here for God's enjoyment in creation?

Are we to believe that you're "hearing voices"? That's really, umm, how shall we say....creepy?

Are you suggesting you have communications with the gods and they confide in you?

None of your gods or any of the gods that humans invented before the invention of your gods are defined in any differentially testable fashion. You assign to your gods human attributes that are no different from ay of the other inventions of the gods. As the resident representative of all things godly, I've watched you re-write and invent your own versions of Christianity while entirely dodging the fundamental problem that no demonstrably accurate version of scripture is available. Like all the gods invented before the invention of your gods, there is nothing that one can point to and say "here is the actual word of the gods."

Maybe you can have the gods write you a letter of recommendation?

 

[LittleNipper]

"The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory,"

"According to Darwin." His theories have pretty much all have been debunked. Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.

The monkeys did not even lose their tails. They have to become anthropoidea from primates first according to common ancestor descent. There is no fossil evidence for this. Besides the chronological layers are suspicious. The only explanation or argument we get is it had to do with the hip and leg bone changes. No one really believes in Lucy (Au. afarensis) as it was put together from several different animals. The bones were found miles apart in different levels of depth. Suffice to say, inconclusive and people don't buy it. When they toured Lucy's fossils around, the museums lost big money. They made up a phoney excuse that the fossils were too valuable so mothballed it back to Ethiopia never to see the light of day again. There should be hundreds, if not thousands, of these fossils if the australopiticines were bipedal. We should have a fairly good agreement on what these creatures looked like from artists' renditions. However, the drawings are different and all over the place. Most look like chimpanzees or chimp hybrids. Thus, if the key to the past is the present, then we find that chimpanzees or even apes are not fully bipedal.

How many points do I get for this slam dunk in your face? It's worth 2, but because of the agility and showmanship (and it's over a villain) it should be worth 3. I'll accept 2 because the villain keeps losing.

How many points do you believe you deserve for false and ignorant statements?

You claim Darwin’s theories have been debunked but you can't provide a single instance. That’s pretty typical in my experience. Religious zealots calling themselves “creationists” never provide any valid points at all. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in creationist rhetoric, but the actual content very rarely includes anything at all of genuine scientific interest. If you have a specific valid point in mind, you might like to bring it to the attention of those who can address your ignorance.

Evolution has been observed. The mechanisms are well described. No scientific or educational institution doubts the occurrence of evolution (except those with a competing religious dogma to protect). There is every reason to accept evolution, and no good reason to reject it. The fabricated, mistake-filled "evidence" of fundamentalist creationism that is supposed to "overturn evolution" does no damage to evolution, no matter how loudly they shout it.

In fact, as time goes on and the methods for testing evolutionary science become more exacting, the facts demonstrating evolution become better defined.

The truth is that creationism is labeled religious thought, and therefore unsuitable to be expressed in governmental funded institutions. This is the only reason Creationism and Intelligent Design are excluded.

Your so called Scientific and Educational institutions are forced to ignore and exclude any logic that eludes to a CREATOR or face losing governmental funding... As long as this remains unchecked, public education is little more than a bastion of atheistic thought and not conducive to educative research, debate, and through investigation.

 

[james bond]

You claim Darwin’s theories have been debunked but you can't provide a single instance.

I've been providing them all throughout the thread. Yet, you can't provide one good example where it's observable aside from microevolution. We do not disagree on that.

These seem to go over your head .

Darwin believed in spontaneous generation from a "warm little pond," but that's been debunked by Louis Pasteur.

He thought bacteria was a "glob of protoplasm."

He thought a single cell was simple and did not contain much information. He didn't have a powerful microscope like today.

He thought there were thousands of transitional fossils or else he was wrong about common ancestors. <=== Your scientists to this day do not admit this.

A lot of it is his beliefs were so elementary that no one would question they have been debunked or would they be considered scientific.

It must be really embarrassing for you to not realize this .