Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

More proof you dont read replies to you. I already wrote in response to the same question from you. Dinosaurs layed eggs. Birds are direct decendants from the dinosaur meaning dinosaurs came before the chicken so ergo the egg came before the chicken

That isn't possible. Where did it get the programming to go from a dinasour to a chicken? Your silly, and forget to think about the branch of this one egg. So now you need a rooster so that this species can live on. Whoops dont forget you also just cant have one pair because thats incest, you have to have several. Silly goose, Evolution is NOT possible.

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

OMG would you quit saying that, there isn't thousands, there are over 2.5 million fossils and bones, and not a single one that connects any species to any other species. Do you have something that says otherwise?

Another epic and boring fail. I am not complaining because until he puts his evidence up for scrutiny by science he is insignificant and your belief in him comical.

Whats to scrutinize when he hasn't presented anything LOL?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Exactly, these are more for entertainment, and aren't quite the same as processed food, processed water, vaccines, medical intervention etc, but they do serve an important role. You see something is lacking in our lives, that drove us to create those.

Oh so we play because we dont fit, we are lacking something. My dog loves to play and if I dont give him a ball he will pick up a stick. Every animal plays and the smarter they are the more they play. So they are not from here either. Like I said you dont ever show any signs of being able to think using logic.

There is obviously something in the natural sense on our home planet that would take the place of all of these.

Explain natural sense

You have to also consider the fact that if we do have disabled abilities, this would also mean that we have emphasis on whats remaining, this can also play into entertainment needs as well.

Disabled abilities are a fact? Facts are verifiable and backed with evidence. Verify and back up that statement.

You were trying to make sense of our hearing evolving.

No you wrote hearing was made and I corrected you. Hearing evolved and I gave examples of other animals that had better hearing. I could have also shown you animals with no hearing. I also explained why. You are the one trying to read moronic fanatsy even here, and failed.

I didn't say bigger feet, I said faster. Really, then why don't apes have a relationship with them to this day?

I stand corrected. Faster feet is just as insane? How would our slower legs keep up? Ever heard of hunting?

What group of the many apes are you asking about? We are apes and we do to this day have a relationship with them. All this has been explained. You closed your eyes stamped your feet and yelled not listening.

So you think you will win debates with me through NON logic?

You trolling fool. A debate should not be a win/lose argument. It is an exchange of views where both sides are meant to listen and try to understand the others point. Early on that is what I attempted but you came into this thread and have continued never listening, never considering, never answering and reject all and any evidence out of hand if you think it will affect your 'WIN'. You even employ dishonest tactics to get your 'WIN'. Why do you think people have walked away from this thread? Do you think it is because you are winning? Is destroying a debate still classed as a win in your idiots guide to trolling?

Not at all, some mockinsons, were lined with fur, so they may not have needed socks.

How idiotic

Of course, if I don't know anything about YOUR area.

What has that got to do with it? You are never going to win if this is the best you can come up with.

Basically everything you have surmized, adds up to this being the truth. We no longer have any target food. I once heard that man can live alone on milk and bread. Bread is man made, Milk is processed. So either way you look at it, its a large process to live that way.

Basically you are again being dishonest. You are showing your ignorance and your total disconnect with the world you live in. Your win seems further away than ever.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Nope I specifically remember you saying that they changed the soffit to keep the birds out.

Yes I suppose you do. That is your trouble though you read what is not there. I have never said the UPVC soffit boards we fitted to keep sparrows out. I explained that when having double glazing fitted it became the norm to have the soffit boards replaced at the same time. More evidence of selective reading and now as you revealed obviously targeted at getting you a cheap win. Your a fraud.

Doesn't sound like a good realtionship if you ask me. Which would be OK FYI, the rules didn't say the relationship had to be good or bad.

You have let slip that you agree there is a relationship and that was all that you required to satisfy your 'Rules' So even though you are not man enough to admit it YOU and I know your original stance has been proven wrong.

All that follows is very poor trolling by you and is dismissed as that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

That isn't possible. Where did it get the programming to go from a dinasour to a chicken? Your silly, and forget to think about the branch of this one egg.

Oh it is very possible. It happend thats how possible it is. You asked what came first, chicken or the egg.
1. Are you now denying the dinosaurs laid eggs?
2.. Are you denying the dinosaurs walked the earth long before the chicken?
3. Are you denying that birds are directly related to dinosaurs?

Even if you deny number 3. 1 & 2 still shows the egg came first

So now you need a rooster so that this species can live on. Whoops dont forget you also just cant have one pair because thats incest, you have to have several.

Showing your ignorance of the discussion you have infested. The chicken did not just blink into existance it evolved through the process we call evolution. It has been explained to you but you chose ignorance which means the above is the best argument you can come up with. Quite sad really

OMG would you quit saying that, there isn't thousands, there are over 2.5 million fossils and bones, and not a single one that connects any species to any other species. Do you have something that says otherwise?

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

Whats to scrutinize when he hasn't presented anything LOL?

First time you have been correct for ages. Thanks for admitting that there is nothing to justify listening to anything he has to say.

reply to post by itsthetooth

That isn't possible. Where did it get the programming to go from a dinasour to a chicken? Your silly, and forget to think about the branch of this one egg. So now you need a rooster so that this species can live on. Whoops dont forget you also just cant have one pair because thats incest, you have to have several. Silly goose, Evolution is NOT possible.

You REALLY should do yourself a favour and open a basic biology book

I'm quite frankly amazed at how well you ignore facts to preserve your fantasy world. I mean, you keep on repeating the same nonsense, even after people posted DOZENS of links that prove you completely wrong.

Here's a great discussion with Ray Comforts, who makes the same silly claims as you:



And just like you, he simply ignores every single fact that debunks his nonsense

"God's" creations evolve. Whats the argument here?

Like bugs trying to figure out what a microchip is for.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
"God's" creations evolve. Whats the argument here?

Like bugs trying to figure out what a microchip is for.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

You're making the assertion that something like a god exists...but there's ZERO objective proof for that. So not sure what your point is

You're essentially saying "god is great, humans are dumb", but you completely fail at proving god's existence. You might just as well be talking about unicorns

reply to post by colin42

Oh so we play because we dont fit, we are lacking something. My dog loves to play and if I dont give him a ball he will pick up a stick. Every animal plays and the smarter they are the more they play. So they are not from here either. Like I said you dont ever show any signs of being able to think using logic.

Wow, Wow, Wow, I'm amazed, your actually catching on.

Explain natural sense

Natural is NOT man made, which is what I have been trying to push on you all along. It would naturally be on our home planet but its not here.

Disabled abilities are a fact? Facts are verifiable and backed with evidence. Verify and back up that statement.

Ok here are some things that prove beyond a doubt that we have disabled powers...

There are seven reasons that suggest we have disabled powers.

1. In my over thirty years studying the supernatural and paranormal, I always thought it was odd that reports about other life that visits us, seems to always have special powers, and we don’t. Looking at this from the commonality of life, we appear to be missing some abilities.

2. There are multiple suggestions in the bible that also concur with us having ability’s removed from us, as a form of punishment. One of which is telepathy, and another called perceive. There might be others missing as well.

3. Vestigial organs are present in the human species, and could be part of some or our disabled ability’s.

4. Only using 10% of our brain, or at least 10% of it’s capability, means we are missing 90% of it’s function.

5. The size of our head is not average by comparison to other life here on earth. In comparison to our body size, our head exceeds the compared percentage by anything else here on earth.

6. Lloyd Pye reveals DNA findings that could also support the idea of us having disabled powers. The first is that our DNA has been tampered with, and the second is the inverted sections, the third is the dormant unrecognizable sections.

7. Heightened remaining senses. We are the only species that has sex for enjoyment, as just an example. There are many things about are existing senses that could be overly sensitive as a result of missing ability’s.

No you wrote hearing was made and I corrected you. Hearing evolved and I gave examples of other animals that had better hearing. I could have also shown you animals with no hearing. I also explained why. You are the one trying to read moronic fanatsy even here, and failed.

Oh I see what your saying, your trying to say that hearing evolved, it wasn't created.

I stand corrected. Faster feet is just as insane? How would our slower legs keep up? Ever heard of hunting?

I didn't mean it in a leteral sense, I meant just running faster.

What group of the many apes are you asking about? We are apes and we do to this day have a relationship with them. All this has been explained. You closed your eyes stamped your feet and yelled not listening.

No I didn't, I read it again to make sure I was reading it correctly. Do you have some examples of our relathionship with apes?

Because if your suggesting we have a good relationship with them, I think your wrong.
www.scientificamerican.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.foxnews.com...
en.wikipedia.org...(chimpanzee)
articles.nydailynews.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Now here are 9 documented attacks, some of which are gruesome as hell, and your going to try to convenience me that these are are relatives.

You trolling fool. A debate should not be a win/lose argument. It is an exchange of views where both sides are meant to listen and try to understand the others point. Early on that is what I attempted but you came into this thread and have continued never listening, never considering, never answering and reject all and any evidence out of hand if you think it will affect your 'WIN'. You even employ dishonest tactics to get your 'WIN'. Why do you think people have walked away from this thread? Do you think it is because you are winning? Is destroying a debate still classed as a win in your idiots guide to trolling?

Neither, I'm waiting for you to give me something to debate, it seems pretty slim pickins.

reply to post by colin42

Not at all, some mockinsons, were lined with fur, so they may not have needed socks.

How idiotic

Ya I'm finding that most of the straight up honest things, you find to be idiotic.

Of course, if I don't know anything about YOUR area.

What has that got to do with it? You are never going to win if this is the best you can come up with.

The question stems back to one regarding YOUR area, NOT mine. I was asking for your answer in YOUR area.

Basically everything you have surmized, adds up to this being the truth. We no longer have any target food. I once heard that man can live alone on milk and bread. Bread is man made, Milk is processed. So either way you look at it, its a large process to live that way.

Basically you are again being dishonest. You are showing your ignorance and your total disconnect with the world you live in. Your win seems further away than ever.

And everytime you claim this, I know I'm winning the debate, because just like all of the other times in the past, you once again avoided the question. This goes back to you producing target food for humans. You wont do it, and you can't do it, because it doesn't exist. Thanks for admitting I'm correct, at least in your own way.

reply to post by colin42

Yes I suppose you do. That is your trouble though you read what is not there. I have never said the UPVC soffit boards we fitted to keep sparrows out. I explained that when having double glazing fitted it became the norm to have the soffit boards replaced at the same time. More evidence of selective reading and now as you revealed obviously targeted at getting you a cheap win. Your a fraud.

Ok so it wasn't the soffit, but the double glazing. Either way it doesn't matter, My point still sticks and is valid.

You have let slip that you agree there is a relationship and that was all that you required to satisfy your 'Rules' So even though you are not man enough to admit it YOU and I know your original stance has been proven wrong.

All that follows is very poor trolling by you and is dismissed as that.

Well there is no proving here, like I'm admitting, even if it were a bad relationship, its still a relationship. The Bear and rainbow trout don't have a good relationship (at least on the trouts side) yet it is still an excellent example of a natural relationship.

reply to post by colin42

Oh it is very possible. It happend thats how possible it is. You asked what came first, chicken or the egg.
1. Are you now denying the dinosaurs laid eggs?

No I'm denying the dinosaur layed a chicken egg. According to everything I have read that new species would die, and fast.

2.. Are you denying the dinosaurs walked the earth long before the chicken?

No I'm denying that your point has nothing to do with the question.

3. Are you denying that birds are directly related to dinosaurs?

Well there is a difference between the chicken being prehistoric, and prehistoric birds laying eggs that become chickens.

Even if you deny number 3. 1 & 2 still shows the egg came first

Even from a creation point of view, it would seem more that the egg came first, however its only speculation and speculation doens't prove anything.

Showing your ignorance of the discussion you have infested. The chicken did not just blink into existance it evolved through the process we call evolution. It has been explained to you but you chose ignorance which means the above is the best argument you can come up with. Quite sad really

Thats not what your saying, your saying a diansour layed a chicken egg, looks more like he did blink into existance.

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

Your math is off, and I have obviously done more research than you. Yes 2.5 million is larger than thousands and thousands, so get with the program. You have 2.5 million fossils and bones and not a single one that connects any species to any other species. Now what does this tell you?

First time you have been correct for ages. Thanks for admitting that there is nothing to justify listening to anything he has to say.

No you were complaining about his findings, or more in how he got them. Like it or not, you were complaining about something. Why don't you just prove him wrong and put it to rest.

reply to post by MrXYZ

You REALLY should do yourself a favour and open a basic biology book

I'm quite frankly amazed at how well you ignore facts to preserve your fantasy world. I mean, you keep on repeating the same nonsense, even after people posted DOZENS of links that prove you completely wrong.

Everything I have looked at says there is no proof of microevolution or macroevolution. With the acception of some viruses and bacteria. Now we aren't either of those so those rules don't apply to us. I can see how peoples imagination have run away with them.

I have not ignored any facts, there have actually been none presented in the way of micro and macroevolution. The only facts I found is that they are all considered to be hypothetical and postulated theorys.

None of these things have ever been witnessed in the wild, much less in humans or any other life for that matter. Either way I'm going to stand on my own findings about a new species not having food. Just like a dinasour laying a chicken egg. What was that chicken suppose to eat. Does the chicken have a target food. Probably not. We have a feed we make to feed him, and he scavanges off the ground to eat.

The chicken was one of the few things we were provided on noahs arc. It is possible that the chicken is also not from here. He even has a problem with getting poop in his water all the time. It would appear that he was made with a hanging water source in mind. Of course if god did move all these things here, is it possible that he wasn't to concearned about what they were going to eat? Looking online it appears he also may not have a target food...
www.avianaquamiser.com...
It's a clue, but you have to have your eyes open to realize it.
We can turn our heads and ignore what I'm saying is right in front of our faces, or we can have an open mind and put this puzzle together.
Placing us here was a bad thing, we don't belong, the planet rejects us constantly, and will continue to. The longer we stay on this planet, the harder its going to become. Setting aside our adaptation and inventions, would you not agree that living here has gotten harder over time?

reply to post by MrXYZ

You're making the assertion that something like a god exists...but there's ZERO objective proof for that. So not sure what your point is

You're essentially saying "god is great, humans are dumb", but you completely fail at proving god's existence. You might just as well be talking about unicorns

OH NO, don't get him talking about unicorns, its his favorite.

reply to post by itsthetooth

1. In my over thirty years studying the supernatural and paranormal, I always thought it was odd that reports about other life that visits us, seems to always have special powers, and we don’t. Looking at this from the commonality of life, we appear to be missing some abilities.

not verifiable evidence

2. There are multiple suggestions in the bible that also concur with us having ability’s removed from us, as a form of punishment. One of which is telepathy, and another called perceive. There might be others missing as well.

not verifiable evidence

3. Vestigial organs are present in the human species, and could be part of some or our disabled ability’s.

That is evidence of evolution. Vestigial organs

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. These may take various forms such as anatomical structures, behaviors and biochemical pathways. Some of these disappear early in embryonic development, but others are retained in adulthood.

4. Only using 10% of our brain, or at least 10% of it’s capability, means we are missing 90% of it’s function.

That is a myth. 10% brain use myth

Neurologist Barry Gordon describes the myth as laughably false, adding, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time".[1] Neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein sets out seven kinds of evidence refuting the ten percent myth:[8]

Studies of brain damage: If 90% of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.

Evolution: The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to twenty percent of the body's energy—more than any other organ—despite making up only 2% of the human body by weight.[9][10] If 90% of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. By the same token, it is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place.

Brain imaging: Technologies such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.

Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.

Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90% of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.

Neural disease: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90% of the brain were inactive, autopsy of adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.

5. The size of our head is not average by comparison to other life here on earth. In comparison to our body size, our head exceeds the compared percentage by anything else here on earth.

You are wrong. That award goes to the common shrew and is not necessarily relative to intelligence. brain to body ratio

The tiny shrew, which holds nearly 10% of its body mass in its brain, has the highest brain-to-body mass ratio of any known animal.

cont. below

6. Lloyd Pye reveals DNA findings that could also support the idea of us having disabled powers. The first is that our DNA has been tampered with, and the second is the inverted sections, the third is the dormant unrecognizable sections.

not verifiable evidence...notice the word I bolded above

7. Heightened remaining senses. We are the only species that has sex for enjoyment, as just an example. There are many things about are existing senses that could be overly sensitive as a result of missing ability’s.

Not true. animal sexual pleasure

It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".

It appears that many animals, both male and female, masturbate, both when partners are available and otherwise.

This proves you do not even research the facts you spew in this thread and are a simple troll.

And everytime you claim this, I know I'm winning the debate, because just like all of the other times in the past, you once again avoided the question. This goes back to you producing target food for humans. You wont do it, and you can't do it, because it doesn't exist. Thanks for admitting I'm correct, at least in your own way.

Trust me......anyone who has read your post here, does not consider you to be......




Good day sir!

reply to post by Connector

not verifiable evidence

sure it is, do the research yourself.

not verifiable evidence

sure it is, read a bible.

That is evidence of evolution. Vestigial organs

Your guessing, and you have no proof.

That is a myth. 10% brain use myth

If its just a myth, then you should have no problem explaining a sevant.

If man created cars in the begining, and we knew from experiments and tests that cars could go no faster than 60 mph, then that is what we would believe. But the day that someone clocked a car going 150 mph, may not be able to be explained, but one thing is learned from it, cars can go 150 mph not 60 mph. A sevants brains is living proof that our brain is capable of much more than we could even imagine.

You are wrong. That award goes to the common shrew and is not relative to intelligence. brain to body ratio

Well remember that lions are scavangers, they may not belong here either. Not an important point as I was referring to the actuall head size not the brain, but given that, you can still see from the chart in wiki, we have percentages that are in comprison to horses and lions, its still odd. This is why I didn't say we have the LARGEST out of all, I know some rare ones top us.

I didn't see your shrew on the chart.

not verifiable evidence...notice the word I bolded above

of course it is, any scientist can challange his findings and prove him wrong.

Not true. animal sexual pleasure

It was just an example of thousands of things that seperate us from other life. Would you like some others?

reply to post by itsthetooth


LOL....complete garbage reply. Proof of not reading the links, more trolling and your complete ignorance. You were cute for awhile, now your simply pathetic....

reply to post by Connector

This proves you do not even research the facts you spew in this thread and are a simple troll.

Even as wiki stated, that is what was once believed.

Trust me......anyone who has read your post here does not consider you......

Really, so in other words there is no reason no one can answer all my questions with a solid answer. Your wrong dude, on so many levels, we are not from here, and there are thousands of things that tell us this. Evolution is not real, its never been real, and never will be real.
I have NEVER in my life seen so many connected dots to try to get a theory to work. Many people today also believe we are not from this planet, I wonder why they would think such a thing, duh, cause they have a clue.

You guys will also one day get a clue. Until then it looks like the theorys multiply to keep the dots connected.

reply to post by Connector


Don't bother trying to explain the 10% myth to him. I tried to do that pages ago and he responded by saying that the pop psychologists who came up with the concept were wrong, but then still argued that the brain was only operating at 10% efficiency. Of course for the brain to work faster it would need to break the laws of physics by speeding up the rate at which electricity can travel. I guess what I'm trying to say is that he has no idea how the brain actually works, but he refuses to admit this fact.

reply to post by Connector

LOL....complete garbage reply. Proof of not reading the links, more trolling and your complete ignorance. You were cute for awhile, now your simply pathetic....

I read them but it looks more like you guys don't.