Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Phantom423I can not disprove Evolution, as it is a reality, just as creation is, and was. Again, I firmly believe both processes occurred, and are valid, in their proper places and times.

Well that was a drastic 180.

I'm very much against the false dilemma of god vs evolution. I agree it COULD be both, but that's much different than saying evolution was proved wrong.

I disagree with that sentiment, as the only places in the theory of evolution any divine component may be found are the places that science has not yet illuminated. Tradition rather than causality begs the presence of a deity in evolutionary biology.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Phantom423I can not disprove Evolution, as it is a reality, just as creation is, and was. Again, I firmly believe both processes occurred, and are valid, in their proper places and times.

Well that was a drastic 180.

I'm very much against the false dilemma of god vs evolution. I agree it COULD be both, but that's much different than saying evolution was proved wrong.

I disagree with that sentiment, as the only places in the theory of evolution any divine component may be found are the places that science has not yet illuminated. Tradition rather than causality begs the presence of a deity in evolutionary biology.

I agree with you here. I'm just saying that theists can rectify their belief in god without denying evolution. I agree there's no evidence whatsoever and it is indeed an appeal to ignorance. I feel that if theists want to fight science they should be focusing on abiogenesis instead of evolution.

a reply to: Barcs

I believe in a creator and believe in evolution and I think the process of evolution Is amazing I don't understand why the religious don't think it is a work of God the process of it I mean.
They should be writing sermons on how God made the rules and mechanics of it all.
To me it makes ne think God is a scientist of sorts making the rules and letting it all ride to see what the universe comes up with.
Oh and cheers to you all for teaching so much over the years.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I would like a citation on your claim of them not being able to clone RH-.

Scientists have questioned where exactly the Rh negative blood group originates from, about 35,000 years ago. It’s seem to originally be connected with certain groups and tribes of people. About 40 to 45% of Europeans have an Rh negative group yet only 3% of African-American and 1% of Asian people have Rh negative blood.

thespiritscience.net...

As I have said before, I dont think the RH - factor came from "Aliens". As I believe "Aliens" are misidentified actors from our ancient past, who are still with us.

In as far as being able to cross "Breed", it can be done, and has been done, but not a easy thing. There is a very high rejection rate in those pregnancies, especially in the past prior to medical intervention today.

Another note, virtually all the Royal Bloodlines are RH -. Its important to understand the mindset here. They Royals take their blood ancestry very seriously . As a side note Kingship translates to Kinship. Blood, is everything to the Royal Mindset.

a reply to: Phantom423For more on the Anunnaki and IgIg

After years of tenuous and hard work for the Anunnaki, the Igigi rebelled against their masters. It is sad that they ‘set fire to their tools and surrounded Enlil’s great house by night’ forcing the ancient Anunnaki to find another source of labor.

This is why the ancient Anunnaki replaced the Igigi, after genetically engineering ancient humans creating a greater workforce.

Many authors suggest that the human ‘slave race’ was created after the ancient Anunnaki genetically modified their genes and that of early humans nearly 500,000 years ago.

www.ancient-code.com...

ADDED: Translated, Anunnaki are the root race RH-, who created the igig or Sons of God RH-, and the igig created the Sons of man, or RH+

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

interesting hypotheses... I still prefer the marvel version with the kree and the inhumans. Slightly more believable as comics rather than hidden history.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

it's really weird how the original authors went to that much effort to encrypt the content of their writings. like they were trying to keep it secret instead of having it published all over the world in easily comprehensible plain speech.

I don't think the authors of ancient scripture intentionally encrypted their writing to a great extent. They explained life the way they understood it, or was taught it. Again, it seems to be about timelines and language, and the translation of it. IgIg translated again could also be the Greek and Roman gods, as well.

The only ones who seem to be intentionally keeping a secret are the Anunnaki and the IgIg. Both have little respect for us, the RH+, as we were created for slave labor.

The mindset is all about bloodlines and the purity of it. Look, look who is running our present world RH+, or RH-. All of our Global Elite are what?

ADDED: The mindset also includes sacrifice. If you are a hi-bread between RH+ and RH-, and display RH- blood, you are the first to be sacrificed. They disrespect the RH+ slaves, but they disrespect those RH- even more because they are "Un pure". In the Royal bloodline mindset, you are an abomination and disgrace. Makes me think of Dianna and her demise...

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Where is the scientific research paper that confirms the claims on your "spirit science" website. I didn't see any science posted, just claims. When I follow the sources, they only link to other speculative websites. Not saying you are wrong, but if you are suggesting RH- can't be cloned there needs to be testable science to confirm it in the form of a peer reviewed research paper, not a spiritual website that claims to be scientific when they aren't.

Lloyd Pye was what I consider to be a Research investigator, outside of the "Scientific" box. His research makes it abundantly clear, mankind, was a creation. His evidence is overwhelming. He passed away before tackling the RH- controversy. His early departure leaves a hole in the research community, and a great loss to all of mankind. Besides, I considered him a personal friend I will always miss.



And if Lloyd had the time I am absolutely certain he would have come to the same conclusion as I.

The RH Negative Blood Type: Differences

A little annoying with just the facts, mam, but very informative.

a reply to: BarcsThe explanation to the cloning is explained in the "Just the facts" video. Again, I'm not a scientist, I'm a researcher. And again, your not going to find the answers you search for, in science. They refuse to look at "all" the evidence. Science, like the intelligence community, is compartmentalized intentionally, to keep the pieces of the puzzle from coming back together... Again, my opinion.

ADDED: Well, not my unique opinion. Lloyd Pye was also made aware of the bias in science by a geneticist informing him of the same.

The first 2 minutes of the video explain the situation.


If the video does not nun follow the below link.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

ah yes, the dude responsible for the "starchild skull" that actually came from a human male with a case of hydrocephalus. And that diagnosis came from an actual doctor, as opposed to a military intelligence officer who retired to study alien-human hybridization. FYI YouTube isn't really a great source of credible insight unless there's a bibliography attached that can be source-spotted.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Youtube videos are not evidence and Lloyd Pye has been debunked many times over. I get that you believe those videos, but without actual scientific research, I'm not buying it. No offense.

They refuse to look at "all" the evidence.

I disagree completely. They refuse to look at evidence that is not testable, because that's not actually objective evidence, which science requires. If somebody actually tried to clone RH- and it failed for that reason alone, there should be papers documenting it. Otherwise you are expecting us to take your data on faith, and I can't do that.

www.eupedia.com...

Your spirit science website said that red hair was a result of RH- blood, but I don't see anything confirming that. This doesn't even mention the RH- as a factor in that. It seems most red haired folks are RH+. Red hair is from the MC1R gene variant.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

The article also mentioned a correlation with higher IQ, but again this is a claim that seems to lack supporting evidence.

Evolution ignores the fact every species on Earth has never evolved over thousands of years.


The species have only adapted within any specific environment, over time. No species evolved into another species - this theory is utter nonsense.


Name one species that has evolved into another species, if possible.


After thousands of years, humans are still humans, cows are still cows, giraffes are still giraffes, and every other species is unchanged, as well.

The evolutionist would suggest all species have evolved from all sorts of other species, which happens over millions of years, very gradually, with many other stages to evolve into an entirely new species.


No species has even indicated any of this. Over thousands of years, with countless distinct species on Earth, not a single one shows anything of evolving into another form, or species


This proves 'evolution' is simply garbage.

a reply to: turbonium1
Many new species have been observed to appear. For example: www.sciencealert.com...

In fact, new species are evolving faster than ever.

Britain has gained about 2,000 new species over the past two millennia, because our predecessors converted forests into managed woodlands, orchards, meadows, wheat fields, roadsides, hedgerows, ponds and ditches, as well as gardens and urban sprawl, each providing new opportunities.

Of course, for a more cardinal kind of evolution (i.e. new genuses and families), a few thousands of years is too short a time frame.

a reply to: wildespace

You're new to this game. The rules are that you bring a morsel of evidence that supports the ToE and an opposing member tosses it aside. No ground can be conceded and no quarter given.

It's a little like throwing a ball in the park with your dog. In this debate, the dog is played by those who accept the ToE.

a reply to: turbonium1

Can you actually prove it wrong? your opinion means nothing unless you have evidence to show it is wrong.
I noticed a member has left this thread because I have asked for evidence against evolution three times.
Come on dudes do as the thread says prove it wrong.
Oh and look up the American goats beard for evidence of species change in thd last hundred years or so.

Over thousands of years, around the world, nobody ever realized massive dinosaurs were roaming the Earth, long before humans first came along.

Until we discovered the dinosaurs in the 1800's, that is.

This apparently led us to the discovery of other dinosaurs, soon afterwards.

And now, we have discovered all new types of dinosaurs, which had once existed, around the world.


The first dinosaur ever discovered in all human history would not likely take thousands of years, unless it was by absolutely amazing chance, by pure luck.


When they found other dinosaurs right after the first one, which alone defies all odds in itself. But when they suddenly 'discovered' many more dinosaurs, it smells fishy as all hell.

A discovery of the first dinosaur ever known, might wash, but it goes off into complete fairy tales.



A bit later on, they announced another amazing discovery - Dinosaurs made all of the Earth's oil, with millions of years at composting.

So this meant oil is a very limited resource. Obviously!

a reply to: turbonium1

So still no actual proof just opinion?.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: turbonium1
Many new species have been observed to appear. For example: www.sciencealert.com...

In fact, new species are evolving faster than ever.

Britain has gained about 2,000 new species over the past two millennia, because our predecessors converted forests into managed woodlands, orchards, meadows, wheat fields, roadsides, hedgerows, ponds and ditches, as well as gardens and urban sprawl, each providing new opportunities.

Of course, for a more cardinal kind of evolution (i.e. new genuses and families), a few thousands of years is too short a time frame.

All of those species existed already.

There are many variations of one species, they do not magically 'evolve' into different species.

All of these 'new' species already existed, somewhere else, and later on, went into new areas. and some will assume that these are new species, which didn't exist before! Not there, anyway.

Humans give birth to other humans, and more humans, and so on, forever and ever, generations of humans.

All species remain as before, and will remain the same species, forever afterwards.



Evolution is saying that all species will evolve into another species, forever changing.

So you believe humans have evolved, too?

Average humans are taller than before, and live longer, as humans

Do you understand that evolution cannot happen over spans of time?

A species is generation-based.

A human gives birth to another human, who does the same, and so forth.

The primitive species were similar to humans, but were never humans, and never evolved into humans.

Neanderthals would give birth to other Neanderthals, not humans, or half-humans.

How is a species ever going to 'evolve' into something else?

An infant is a human, gives birth to humans, and so on.

When is it possible to evolve into another species?

a reply to: turbonium1

Again just your own opinion got any proof like the thread asks?.
Or any proof for your own version of getting here?.
Did you check out the American goat beard? shows a specie evolving into another.