Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by flyingfish

Maybe that's your problem, don't think just listen and learn. Discard your earlier research of tons of guys busted claiming proof of evolution and look at what is current.

Well if I do that, then I have to also agree with Pye and von daniken.

If you cannot do this then at least show us this proof of "tons of guys getting busted". I'll make it simple for you just show me one of the guys your talking about and how he is busted.

www.nwcreation.net...

www.uark.edu...

www.conservapedia.com...

www.bible.ca...

www.wnd.com...

Look Colin, evolution fraud in school books, they must have been used in the school you went to.

reply to post by DerekJR321

The definition of a species is "A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal..."

Your not understanding the principal of evolution. You assume a fish will change to a monkey, or something similar.

No I was being sarcastic.

At least that's the way I'm reading your understanding. Evolution doesn't take place in a span of a decade, or a millennium. It is over the course of millions of years. A species will change over the course of time until which time it is no longer able to breed with the principal species.

And can you please explain to me how it is that a species is able to continue on without anyone else to breed with.

Thus "speciation" occurs. Yes, all species are a "variation" of a principal species. But life has existed on this planet for billions of years.

It's as though your saying that speciation is determined once gametic isolation is observed. The problem is that its an assumption. Granted they are no longer breeding but that is not proof of evolution.

Things change. Just as someone stated, we human beings have a tail bone. Why? Why are human beings so similar to say a chimpanzee? When homo-erectus walked upright, there really wasn't much need for a thumb on our foot.. hence we now have a big toe.

It's another grand leap in the realm of evolution, something that I'm seeing all to often here on the evoltuion channel.

Your over complicating things. What is the basic necessity of food? Protein, carbohydrates, etc. When early "man" was around millions of years, they were thought to be more of a scavenger.

Actually you were correct the first time, we had and still have a scavengers diet.

The intake of proteins allowed bigger brain growth over the course of hundreds of years.

The problem is that we are not the only things on this planet privy to protien intake, so I find your assumption false.

Thus increased intellect, which allowed the creation of tools, which allowed the creation of hunting, etc. All species have a "target food".

Actually they don't, and some of the reason why is extinction and some is from transpermia.

It's called survival. There is no specific food for a species. As long as the living body gets the nutrients it needs it will survive. Human beings are omnivores. Why is that? Probably because we adapted over millions of years. I'm not really following your "specific food group for a species" here. Maybe I am just confused.

Clearly, the idea of target food is much deeper than that.

No species makes food for itself except human beings. And this is why we are considered the "dominant species".

I think its a clear sign that we are not in our intended element.

But we make our own food because we have learned and adapted. The use of fire helped that. We weren't just put here on earth and "poof" we had hells kitchen and McDonalds all around.

What your referring to is called redundant adaptation. Humans are guilty of this and we would not be alive if it wasn't for it.

Under wiki's evolution page, you will see a section where an evolutionist claims that adaptation is actually part of evolution. This is false and never should have been allowed to be there. The reason why it has is because they wanted to allow evolutionists to claim there definition. I'm just saying its false.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Oh Dr Colin, whats a matter, no T&c violation this time? LOL.

Perhaps my TC violation was because I quoted you and your bad language. Yours was the first one to recieve it.

Colin I read all the pages as I went through them. How do you think I have known when to respond to you, or even respond twice because you always reply twice to me.

Be carefull you are being watched. What has this to do with the topic in hand?

I have done both. I told you that even a creator could have been the reason behind diversity. I don't see how evolution could have done it anyhow.

And I have told you that unless you provide the definitions you have made up you have lost this debate and lost it buy a huge margin

I did, and I took it all at face value.

Like I have wrote before , for a lie to work it must be believable, yours are not. You always respond with IMO but never supply any other backup. You opinion, the opinion of a proven liar means nothing

Well there is no way that things that happened back in biblical times can be proven today. It's not like evolution where you have no excuse to not be producing evidence.

But you just got through writing that you will only accept proven facts? Is this a one way street only? Is your opinion suffiicient to overide 150 years of hard work? You are an idiot if you think your stance is the correct one.

The subject.

400+ pages and you have to ask the subject????????????????????. You demand facts yet you write in your support:

Well if I'm a sapiensaphobe about this, then you must be new to whats going on. I didn't have to research the goof, I had never heard of anything that ants do that is unnatural. Now I understand that you guys might rely on the straight forward approach and find it pretty time consuming and tidius, but I on the other hand just realized some common sense facts. As a result a lot of unnecessary work was avoided.

So you show me yours and I will show you mine AGAIN.

PS. Still waiting for your definitions of your made up terms. Any idea of when they will appear?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Maybe that's your problem, don't think just listen and learn. Discard your earlier research of tons of guys busted claiming proof of evolution and look at what is current.

Well if I do that, then I have to also agree with Pye and von daniken.

If you cannot do this then at least show us this proof of "tons of guys getting busted". I'll make it simple for you just show me one of the guys your talking about and how he is busted.

www.nwcreation.net...

www.uark.edu...

www.conservapedia.com...

www.bible.ca...

www.wnd.com...

Look Colin, evolution fraud in school books, they must have been used in the school you went to.

LOL! There's the problem! your getting incorrect information!
All you need to do is pick one (just one) of the arguments your seeing in one of these comical sites and I will gladly show you demonstrational truth.
Remember pick just one, then we will go from there and bring down the others one at a time.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Maybe that's your problem, don't think just listen and learn. Discard your earlier research of tons of guys busted claiming proof of evolution and look at what is current.

Well if I do that, then I have to also agree with Pye and von daniken.

If you cannot do this then at least show us this proof of "tons of guys getting busted". I'll make it simple for you just show me one of the guys your talking about and how he is busted.

www.nwcreation.net...

www.uark.edu...

www.conservapedia.com...

www.bible.ca...

www.wnd.com...

Look Colin, evolution fraud in school books, they must have been used in the school you went to.

No wonder you're confused if you get your information from non-scientific comedy sites like the ones you linked

reply to post by itsthetooth

Oh , piltdown man. I raise you on shourin shroud. So what, men lie. Science found out the lie of pitdown man and the lie of the shourin shroud. Religion never showed either.

Second link refers to 'missing link. Refuted and explained. Cant be bothered.

Third link again discovered by science. Now show me the science behind a man living in a whale.

Fourth link: More trash bourne out of ignorance, You are obviously a fan

5th link goes along of the lines you wrote before. You look for things that dont exist and when you find nothing you believe it supports your view. Glaring example of your ignorance I am afraid.

If you really want an example of fraud explain this:

Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.

Followed by a post later

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

And the two conflicting posts being passed off as a TYPO. Now that is really a fraud. The work of an absolute liar. Do you know who that person was?

Look Colin, evolution fraud in school books, they must have been used in the school you went to.

Remember you are being looked at. This looks to me to be the provacation of a troll than someone that wants to debate the subject, Explain diversity without refering to evolution. You have responded to a post from someone else yet involve me in it. Is trolling a T& C violition?

reply to post by colin42

Oh , piltdown man. I raise you on shourin shroud. So what, men lie. Science found out the lie of pitdown man and the lie of the shourin shroud. Religion never showed either.

You are correct, the Piltdown man fraud is old news and the men making these claims are already-exposed charlatans currently imprisoned for fraud. Using this as proof against evolution is a propagandists fraud perpetuated by creationist.
The scientific process of peer-review seeks to expose and correct fraud by design. But creationist arguments are withheld from peer-review because they can be shown to be demonstrably wrong.

Even before the Piltdown hoax was officially exposed, an American paleontologist earned himself a life-time of embarrassment when he found a tooth from an extinct species of pig in Nebraska, and mislabeled it, Hesperopithecus. The cheek teeth of pigs and peccaries are fairly similar to ape molars, and this one was badly worn such that Henry Fairfield Osborne initially believed it to be human. But the real embarrassment came when he publicized his find in a popular magazine rather than submitting it for peer review first. Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t. Everyone who saw the fossil agreed that it did look like an ape’s tooth. But with only a couple tentative exceptions, the entire contemporary scientific community either immediately rejected the accuracy of Osborne’s assertions, or they demanded more substantial evidence to back them. He obviously couldn’t provide that evidence despite another five years of searching. Eventually, he came to the sad realization that his fossil probably wasn’t really human after all. His more skeptical associate, W.K. Gregory then published a formal retraction in scientific journals. Creationists often accuse scientists of contriving the illustration of Nebraska man and of conjuring a whole skeleton and facial construct out of a single tooth that was never even human in the first place. But the fact is that the magazine commissioned their own ‘artist’s impression’, and scientists of the day, including Osborn himself, immediately reacted with harsh criticism. As a result, the article was never reprinted.

Further reading.

OK...as I have said...GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER! WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY NOW!?!

TOOTH...you have admitted you have a TAIL BONE. By LOGIC...your arguement is OVER! There is NOTHING MORE TO TALK ABOUT! GAME OVER!

As you have admitted to having a TAIL BONE...and there by admit that HuMANITIES ANCESTORS had a TAIL...and by googling right now if you wish...you can see more than just these........

www.google.com... biw=1024&bih=619&sei=5s2UT5jkOuqD6AGy1cmIBA

GAME OVER! THESE REALITIES ARE IRREFUTABLE! THEY CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE! THEY CANNOT BE DICONNECTED FROM THIS TOPIC! THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE EVOLUTIONARY THROWBACKS WHO WERE BORN WITH TAILS AS OUR ANCIENT ANCESTORS WERE TAILED!

12 MILLION people on this Planet have TAILS! This is so because of REMNANT DNA that every so often in a Human Beings Evolutionary Encoded DNA...becomes active by a myriad of reasons. The reason WHY the DNA ENCODING for tail growth becomes active is not a issue for our TOPIC. What is important is that ALL HUMANS HAVE THIS DNA ENCODING FOR TAIL GROWTH! THUS....WE ALL HAD TAILS AT ONE POINT!

THIS....is a FACT that you cannot dispute nor can any debate or words you may say...change the REALITY OF THIS FACT! GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER! SPLIT INFINITY

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
OK...as I have said...GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER! WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY NOW!?!

TOOTH...you have admitted you have a TAIL BONE. By LOGIC...your arguement is OVER! There is NOTHING MORE TO TALK ABOUT! GAME OVER!

As you have admitted to having a TAIL BONE...and there by admit that HuMANITIES ANCESTORS had a TAIL...and by googling right now if you wish...you can see more than just these........

www.google.com... biw=1024&bih=619&sei=5s2UT5jkOuqD6AGy1cmIBA

GAME OVER! THESE REALITIES ARE IRREFUTABLE! THEY CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE! THEY CANNOT BE DICONNECTED FROM THIS TOPIC! THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE EVOLUTIONARY THROWBACKS WHO WERE BORN WITH TAILS AS OUR ANCIENT ANCESTORS WERE TAILED!

12 MILLION people on this Planet have TAILS! This is so because of REMNANT DNA that every so often in a Human Beings Evolutionary Encoded DNA...becomes active by a myriad of reasons. The reason WHY the DNA ENCODING for tail growth becomes active is not a issue for our TOPIC. What is important is that ALL HUMANS HAVE THIS DNA ENCODING FOR TAIL GROWTH! THUS....WE ALL HAD TAILS AT ONE POINT!

THIS....is a FACT that you cannot dispute nor can any debate or words you may say...change the REALITY OF THIS FACT! GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER! SPLIT INFINITY

LOL! If I had one of things I would rubber band it till it fell off.

reply to post by colin42

And I have told you that unless you provide the definitions you have made up you have lost this debate and lost it buy a huge margin

I beg to differ, I think when you have failed to produce any information that proves evoltuon in the way your understanding it to be true.

You also failed to own up to the fact that people on this thread are taking the belief out of context, even though I proved this through quotes from wiki and a popular evolution site.

You also failed to produce any examples of what I was asking for through evolution. As an example when I asked for a species that has a relationship with man, you gave me one that has a relationship with mans homes.

I on the other hand was able to produce links that disprove your understanding of evolution, stump you with questions you were unable to answer that proves intervention.

Like I have wrote before , for a lie to work it must be believable, yours are not. You always respond with IMO but never supply any other backup. You opinion, the opinion of a proven liar means nothing

Most of what I have replied with was NOT an opinion.

But you just got through writing that you will only accept proven facts? Is this a one way street only? Is your opinion suffiicient to overide 150 years of hard work? You are an idiot if you think your stance is the correct one.

That would be the difference between evolution and intervention. Evolution is held together by about 24 hypothesis and one fact, where intervention is backed up by redundant documentation.

400+ pages and you have to ask the subject????????????????????. You demand facts yet you write in your support:

That wasn't a question, it was an answer, if you notice there is not a question mark. Again it is something important you could gain to learn from. Using proper punctuation is key in communications, and not trying to argue your side that the other person should be smart enough to figure it out and that they aren't needed.

So you show me yours and I will show you mine AGAIN.

PS. Still waiting for your definitions of your made up terms. Any idea of when they will appear?

My definitions have already appeared, and will no longer appear, unless someone else asks. I'm sorry but you lost this one. You don't win a debate by ignoring the other person.

reply to post by flyingfish

LOL! There's the problem! your getting incorrect information!
All you need to do is pick one (just one) of the arguments your seeing in one of these comical sites and I will gladly show you demonstrational truth.
Remember pick just one, then we will go from there and bring down the others one at a time.

You can't just pick one, they all apply. They are all valid. Unless you have something you know about one of them.

Scientists will always be able to bust evoltuionists because they know that evidence will NEVER exist. It's not an issue of who issues the claim, its an issue of people claiming proof.

What this means is that evolution will NEVER be a proven theory, and the reasons are simple. You can't prove a theory that isn't fact, and scientists know this. Evolution is a loosley held together series of hypothesis that have never been proven. Just a bunch of fantasy.

reply to post by MrXYZ

No wonder you're confused if you get your information from non-scientific comedy sites like the ones you linked

I wasn't able to locate anything comical about evolution fraud.

I saw it in my mind:

A world where fish give birth to monkeys, the odd child with hydrocephalus is suddenly an alien, science isn't based on objective evidence (as in: blood letting cures almost every disease!), humans can barely hold on due to the lack of "target food", and scientific theories are now suddenly hypotheses at the same time (because using just one word would be just damn too simple). A world where everyone paid the $6.95 for Pye's manual on how to deal with this oh so very crazy world.

What a glorious world!!!

...and then I woke up

Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.

Followed by a post later


Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

Well I know what your doing Colin. You think that by repeating over and over the mistakes I have made that people will just chalk me up to being a troll. You do seem to forget however that I have already explained that this was a typo. If you notice they are a complete contradiction of each other, and like I keep saying I was not including aquadic life in one example.

Of course I now realize that I always should include aquatic life in the population.

What you are overlooking is why this happened. When debating about other life here on earth, and making comparisons, aquatic life is almost never considered because they usually have very little in common with us, so I made that assumption.

Remember you are being looked at. This looks to me to be the provacation of a troll than someone that wants to debate the subject, Explain diversity without refering to evolution. You have responded to a post from someone else yet involve me in it. Is trolling a T& C violition?

If anyone is trolling, its YOU. repeatedly asking the same questions over and over while I answer them over and over. I don't know what you expect to change but nothing has changed in all of the times that you keep asking the same questions over and over.

Did you know that the definitinon of crazy is when someone does the same thing over and over, and expects to get different results? < Thats a question mark.<

OT, slightly, but relevant.

Evolution seen in "synthetic DNA"

www.bbc.co.uk...

Link to the abstract here:

www.sciencemag.org...

reply to post by flyingfish

You are correct, the Piltdown man fraud is old news and the men making these claims are already-exposed charlatans currently imprisoned for fraud. Using this as proof against evolution is a propagandists fraud perpetuated by creationist.
The scientific process of peer-review seeks to expose and correct fraud by design. But creationist arguments are withheld from peer-review because they can be shown to be demonstrably wrong.

I disagree. All of the evolution believers on here seem to be believing in something that is obviously out of bounds.

I have presented links that clearly prove specieation is very isolated, and its expained in detail how. None the less assumptions are made and theory is stretched way out of bounds to what I'm being presented with on this thread.

The purpose in me pointing out all of the fraud links, even though they are very old news, is to prove what lenghts people will go to, to try to make evoltuion stick. I see the same things on this thread.

Speciation has only ever been witnessed in some aquatic life, bacteria, and viruses, while other sites are making claims of aleged insects purley assumed from gametic isolation.

One thing is for sure, the evoltuion dream is very much alive. When someone on this thread has to resort to asking me the same questions over and over, then dismissing any of my returns about definitions, clearly is an example of the thick minded fraudsters. I love when some people try to argue that evolution is even used in todays medican, which is also a fact but again doesn't prove all of the other unwitnessed sections of its theory.

When people have to resort to such fraudster type tactics, it proves without question that evolution is not capable to supporting itself in the debate, in other words, I won.

There are no pages that debunk intervention, there is however one author that has been busted. I think its important to know that just because someone gets busted doens't mean that ALL of there work is fraud. That author might have some valid points even though they got busted. Unfortunatly this is the type of world we live in, where you make one mistake and your out.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

OK...as I have said...GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER! WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY NOW!?!

TOOTH...you have admitted you have a TAIL BONE. By LOGIC...your arguement is OVER! There is NOTHING MORE TO TALK ABOUT! GAME OVER!

As you have admitted to having a TAIL BONE...and there by admit that HuMANITIES ANCESTORS had a TAIL...and by googling right now if you wish...you can see more than just these........

These are the types of assumptions that create fraudsters. We also share two eyes, a nose, a mouth, a tounge, two ears, a head, hair, My point here is that it doens't prove relation. Your making an assumption based on the fact that you have no other explanation. Since you have no other explanation, it must be evolution, and your wrong. There is no golden rule except that on this thread that says it must be.

Your wanting so badly to prove a relation between us and other life that your willing to accept things on a whim. There is no proof that our tale is even the same type of tail.

reply to post by flyingfish

LOL! If I had one of things I would rubber band it till it fell off.

Everytime I think about it, I think of an episode of X Files, where a killer had a tail and was identified by it. He was bending over working on some plumbing and right above his butt crack was this little wiggley tail. It cracks me up.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

LOL! If I had one of things I would rubber band it till it fell off.

Everytime I think about it, I think of an episode of X Files, where a killer had a tail and was identified by it. He was bending over working on some plumbing and right above his butt crack was this little wiggley tail. It cracks me up.

And do you remember what Scully said in that episode?

SCULLY: You see here, these identical band trait matches all showing a small loss of a part of chromosome number eight? Each of these five children, born to five different women, all share the same father.

MULDER: Yeah?

SCULLY: I should have thought of it sooner. This kind of appended birth defect is often passed on within a family.

MULDER: Meaning the father had a tail as well?

SCULLY: Though he most likely had it surgically removed somewhere along the way.

MULDER: How would this happen?

SCULLY: Birds and the bees and the monkey babies, Mulder.

We all have the genetic potential for tails. It's just switched off.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I beg to differ, I think when you have failed to produce any information that proves evoltuon in the way your understanding it to be true.

You can beg all you like but it does not make your of hand dismissal of all I and others have provided you with correct. You on the other hand have offered nothing and still refuse to define your made up terms.

You also failed to own up to the fact that people on this thread are taking the belief out of context, even though I proved this through quotes from wiki and a popular evolution site.

Another garbled nonsensical collection of rubbish.

You also failed to produce any examples of what I was asking for through evolution. As an example when I asked for a species that has a relationship with man, you gave me one that has a relationship with mans homes.

And you have not supplied the definitions for the terms you made up. You want this topic and your involvemnt to move forward that is what you have to do. This silly attempt to steer the discussion away from that point is another failure on your part.

I on the other hand was able to produce links that disprove your understanding of evolution, stump you with questions you were unable to answer that proves intervention.

Again just because you say you did does not make it true, in fact you are lying. At best you provided links you never read yourself that actualy had a negative impact on your, at best flimsy stand point.

Most of what I have replied with was NOT an opinion.

Agreed what was not your opinion was sheer fantasy. Still adds up to nonsense.

That would be the difference between evolution and intervention. Evolution is held together by about 24 hypothesis and one fact, where intervention is backed up by redundant documentation.

Oh dear. Provide the definition for redundant documentation

That wasn't a question, it was an answer, if you notice there is not a question mark. Again it is something important you could gain to learn from. Using proper punctuation is key in communications, and not trying to argue your side that the other person should be smart enough to figure it out and that they aren't needed.

This from you, what a joke.

My definitions have already appeared, and will no longer appear, unless someone else asks. I'm sorry but you lost this one. You don't win a debate by ignoring the other person.

As the gramma king you should know that definitions do not appear. You have not supplied any definitions for your made up terms and you will be asked to provide them until you do or agree to stop using them. You have ignored anything spoon fed you so again this is another lesson I do not accept from you.