You want proof of evolution at work, here it is.... Enjoy! (Observable and testable).

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

It’s impossible for humans to mate with primates and it’s also to impossible to accomplish artificially, that would only leave genetic engineering to create a chimera and for now that too remains an impossibility...
Or are you suggesting the annunaki were flying monkey Gods that mated with lesser tree dwelling monkeys and magically created humans?
Until you learn to distinguish the relevance of what separates one faith from another or how the artifact s of ancient history are misinterpreted and deliberately misrepresented and why... Well you will just keep saying one stupid thing after another...
And I can’t help but wonder why you would think raggedyman is into Scientology?

a reply to: whereislogic


Ironic that you accuse me of playing semantics when that’s exactly what you’re doing. You argue over semantics then move your goal posts, claim victory, rinse repeat, quote some BS Jehovah’s Witness garbage and start from scratch in your next post.

Claim whatever you want but the book was marketed for lay people, not the scientific community and you provide, as usual, a quote devoid of context. Keep up the good work.

a reply to: peter vlar

You paint false pictures on my behaviour in order to distract from admitting you were wrong about something and acknowledging the reality of the situation. From this and previous behaviour I have concluded that you are being dishonest on purpose. I doubt you'll even bring up your original claim anymore in response to anything I said about it that demonstrates it to be wrong. Too busy with the ad hominem distractions.

It should be plain to anyone who has read what I responded to, that you were wrong and then you try to distract from what you were actually wrong about by making other claims and talking about other things, primarily focussed on everything I'm supposedly doing wrong for correcting you. The fact that this behaviour is so repetitive and also demonstrated by people who seem to think very much alike, and that it's so obviously dishonest, indicates to me that it's deliberate. You and others on the same bandwagon seem to have no desire to discuss this subject in any sort of honest, reasonable fashion. So why do you keep responding whenever someone disagrees with something you said? To discredit, discredit, discredit, and to pump yourselves up as intellectually superior. It's the tired old propaganda technique of appealing and reverse appealing to pride, playing on people's fears of seeming intellectually inferior.

It'll work, but don't expect someone to stay quiet about it and not give a heads-up to anyone who cares about true knowledge/science and honesty. Or dealing with the reality/truth of matters.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

So your scientific evidence is to sledge me like your a school child

I am rubber you are glue, bounces of me and stick to you, you follower of Xenu, you

Grow up

a reply to: peter vlar

Pete, you don’t get to decide where the goal posts are
It’s not your game, it’s not a game

Show the scientific evidence and nobody needs goal posts, we all want real science to prove what you believe in, then we can as well, outside of that you are a snake oil salesman lying to people

Empirical evidence, just do it

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well apparently for some people it is indeed a game where they can change the rules as they go. That’s not a discussion, it’s a joke. And the empirical evidence has been demonstrated repeatedly. Every time I went out of my way to provide you with said requested empirical evidence, you’ve told me you weren’t going to waste your time reading it so why on earth would I brother entertaining such a ludicrous notion again? No thanks, I don’t do requests anymore. You guys can play young earth creationist twister or whatever games you and the Jehovahs have going on.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar

You paint false pictures on my behaviour in order to distract from admitting you were wrong about something and acknowledging the reality of the situation. From this and previous behaviour I have concluded that you are being dishonest on purpose. I doubt you'll even bring up your original claim anymore in response to anything I said about it that demonstrates it to be wrong. Too busy with the ad hominem distractions.

It should be plain to anyone who has read what I responded to, that you were wrong and then you try to distract from what you were actually wrong about by making other claims and talking about other things, primarily focussed on everything I'm supposedly doing wrong for correcting you. The fact that this behaviour is so repetitive and also demonstrated by people who seem to think very much alike, and that it's so obviously dishonest, indicates to me that it's deliberate. You and others on the same bandwagon seem to have no desire to discuss this subject in any sort of honest, reasonable fashion. So why do you keep responding whenever someone disagrees with something you said? To discredit, discredit, discredit, and to pump yourselves up as intellectually superior. It's the tired old propaganda technique of appealing and reverse appealing to pride, playing on people's fears of seeming intellectually inferior.

It'll work, but don't expect someone to stay quiet about it and not give a heads-up to anyone who cares about true knowledge/science and honesty. Or dealing with the reality/truth of matters.

The only thing plain here is your own delusions, your consistent moving of the goal posts, engaging in the exact behavior you’re accusing others of while making factual error after factual error and that you are an impish child who isn’t actually interested in a discussion of the science. How ironic that you are the very thing you think you loathe. And Raggedy calls me a snake oil salesman. Hahaha. You guys are a really cute couple, just put a ring on his finger
Already.

a reply to: peter vlar

You are a liar, evolution has no empirical evidence
Or
Prove me a liar and show it to me
Repetable and observable and testable
I don’t want to see a bird turn into a bird, we see that.
It just proves birds can change into birds

Empirical evidence Pete, please, not pictures of monkeys and trees and giraffes necks

Pete, to end this argument, have me jump on the evolutionist boat is provide empirical scientific evidence not faith statements
Why won’t you do that rather than suggest I marry some other guy

Is your argument that pathetic you have to bandy homosexuality as a defence
Truly have to dredge the bottom of the barrel, have to slur with homosexuality, btw it doesn’t offend me, you have homophobic issues and using someone’s lifestyle as a weapon against other is pretty low.


Why not just prove evolution with science if it’s a simple fact

Go ahead, go


a reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic

You use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. You make a mountain out of nothing and then go off on yet another JW rant that has nothing to do with anything. I should have been more clear when I made the statement that it isn’t used that way professionally by anyone I’ve worked with or under. Simpson was a huge figure when it comes to the MES but as you often do, you use quotes devoid of context. When Simpson said/wrote that it was because he was writing for a lay audience. Hence his reference to “popular usage”. But play semantic games if it makes you feel better about yourself.

P.S. I really love how the vast majority of our citations are either 30+ years old and completely outdated or you cite the Watchtower or JW.org. Why are you so unfamiliar with anything that’s happened in Anthropology and Paleontology since 1980? We’ve learned a hell of a lot since then.

So what do you have for empirical, falsifiable evidence for organisms-to-humans evolution?

Let’s go, the whole evolutionist atheist team

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Ok, everyone keeps asking for evidence of evolution, (Raggedyman, EdMC2)… Here’s some…

I watched a programme a few years back where they were dissecting a Giraffe. Was fascinating… this is the biggest thing I took from the programme:-

In humans, the vocal chord comes from the back of the voice box in the throat, down the neck, wraps around a ventricle of the heart, then travels all the way back up the neck and connects to the brain. This is clearly not the most efficient route and clearly would not be “designed” this way…

In Giraffe’s also, believe it or not, the chord travels all the way down the neck, round the heart and all the way back to the brain up the neck. As I am sure you will agree, had this been designed this would be a ludicrous route to take.

This all comes from our (Humans and Giraffe’s) common ancestor you see… When the first mammal slithered out of the oceans all those millions of years ago it was still effectively an amphibious creature, it just evolved/mutated enough to be able to breath air, it clearly gained an advantage from this transition… In fish this route that the chord takes IS the most economical route…

This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor… To claim that this anomaly is DESGINED this way is ridiculous… If it is designed this way then your god is very bad at design....

Please discuss…

PA

So what do you have for empirical, falsifiable evidence for organisms-to-humans evolution?

a reply to: peter vlar

Too late, you like to insult people, and now it's too late to backtrack your argument. If you hadn't used insults and instead had tried to make a logical argument at least I would have respected your argument. Saadanius hijazensis is of the family of catarrhines, and Seiffert, 2012;Harrison, 2013 argued that Saadanius hijazensis are more closely related to crown catarrhines than are propliopithecids.

Not to mention the fact that you haven't proved that any other species of old world monkeys or apes that have evolved into more intelligent species like humans. Again, 55 million years have gone by and monkeys are almost exactly the same today as the Archicebus achilles was 55 million years ago. No evolution into learning to use primitive tools. No evolution in speech. No evolution in intelligence. Why?

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Raggedyman

...its just rehashing of old Mesopotamian, Babylonian and Sumerian religions, and in that religion it even says man was created from apes, and breed to be workers, and also they were breed to be not all that bright.
...

Interesting. Do you have any historical sources or literature that shows that storyline? Cause I've been unable to trace back evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines like that beyond the ancient Hindu Brahmin and Greek philosophers, Mother Nature worshippers and pantheists. But I've always suspected that if I dig deep enough, I should be able to trace these ideas back all the way to Babylon based on some other popular ideas such as the immortality of the soul (related to the Eastern philosophical concept of reincarnation which in turn relates to their form of evolutionary ideas and the evolutionary tree, i.e. "tree of life"). Babylon being a religious propaganda center of the ancient world, from which many ideas have spread to all corners of the world, as far as South America (where you can also find the cross of the Babylonian God Tammuz, i.e. the T(au) with its crossbeam lowered, also adopted by Christendom and related to the Assyrian cross as used by the German forces, and the Swastika or Buddhist cross tilted at an angle of 45 degrees).

I did find some connection to the "Chaldean priests and the Persian magi" (Babylon; Medo-Persia) mentioned in this presentation:

But not too much detail about that historical connection in that particular presentation, which focuses on the Hindu Brahmin and Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Anaximander.

This is the 21st century and people are still teaching evolution.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly
DNA is of intelligent design. Its code is perfection. This code built within its winding sets of codons can create what ever the surrounding pressures demand. And yes God does still play a part cause something wrote the code. My humble opinion is that from intelligent design a mechanism for evolution is what keeps life going. The middle ground so to speak.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I believe what you are referring to as the 'vocal cord' is actually the vagus nerve, which has more functions than just controlling the voice box.
Vagus nerve

laryngeal nerve

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

How does that prove anything, maybe a common designer
Where is the evidence, what does it prove where is the scientific relevance and how does it prove anything.
If it was a dumb design why didn’t it evolve away and instead we kept longer necks than a stupid vocal chord anomalie

Talk about pseudo scientific crackpot stupidity, you have offered nothing relevant at all and think you have completed something

Why don’t you ask Woodie in a PM why what you have said is so stupid

Floored logic here. Things dont evolve away unless they inhibit the creatures ability to survive and/or breed.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Ok, everyone keeps asking for evidence of evolution, (Raggedyman, EdMC2)… Here’s some…

I watched a programme a few years back where they were dissecting a Giraffe. Was fascinating… this is the biggest thing I took from the programme:-

In humans, the vocal chord comes from the back of the voice box in the throat, down the neck, wraps around a ventricle of the heart, then travels all the way back up the neck and connects to the brain. This is clearly not the most efficient route and clearly would not be “designed” this way…

In Giraffe’s also, believe it or not, the chord travels all the way down the neck, round the heart and all the way back to the brain up the neck. As I am sure you will agree, had this been designed this would be a ludicrous route to take.

This all comes from our (Humans and Giraffe’s) common ancestor you see… When the first mammal slithered out of the oceans all those millions of years ago it was still effectively an amphibious creature, it just evolved/mutated enough to be able to breath air, it clearly gained an advantage from this transition… In fish this route that the chord takes IS the most economical route…

This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor… To claim that this anomaly is DESGINED this way is ridiculous… If it is designed this way then your god is very bad at design....

Please discuss…

PA

What is the point the OP is trying to make? Evolution and God as the creator of the universe are not mutually exclusive.

originally posted by: hsvenforcer

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

How does that prove anything, maybe a common designer
Where is the evidence, what does it prove where is the scientific relevance and how does it prove anything.
If it was a dumb design why didn’t it evolve away and instead we kept longer necks than a stupid vocal chord anomalie

Talk about pseudo scientific crackpot stupidity, you have offered nothing relevant at all and think you have completed something

Why don’t you ask Woodie in a PM why what you have said is so stupid

Floored logic here. Things dont evolve away unless they inhibit the creatures ability to survive and/or breed.

Did you happen to read any of the other comments that explained the location of the nerve and it’s relevance

Why are evolutionists so ignorant of science even when it’s right before their bloody eyes

The reason we have cancers, defects, disease, and so on, is do to the fall of man with Adam and Eve. I know there is a God, and he has a son, Jesus Christ that shed his blood for me when God put the wrath of sin on him when he was crucified and resurrected.
Now, evolution is Satans lie, that he has spread the the world. Now, I am sure, I will be attached for what I’m saying, which is fine. Not here to argue about this topic. Just giving my 2 sense.