Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by MrXYZ

How can you expect people to take you serious if you keep on pretending Pye or the bible is real objective evidence?

You saying humans aren't related to other species is moronic btw...

Depends on what you mean by related. I think people have taken it to extreme, and assumed that since we do share a lot of the same DNA with other life, that we must be related. Again a bunch of creators could have been the cause for this.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Your idiots guide to idiotic statements aside.

Since we are on the subject though, perhaps we can recap and test your skills since you seem to believe so much in this garbage. You have been present some of the time that I have been debating things with Colin, so I'm going to quiz you on the same things.

You have never entered into a debate with me or anyone else on this thread. You ignore any logical argument or evidence, usually with a short one sentence dismissal and no argument against to the points made at all.

It was proven with Colin that no species here on earth has a direct relationship with man, and again there is a reson for this, we are not from here.

I know one of your religious rituals is to lie as often as possible but hey. Make some of them believable please. The truth is you have been given countless examples of mans relationships with all life on this planet direct and indirect. And please. When you decide to lie like this leave my name out of it you troll.

There was never any target food that was offered to prove we are from here, while other species have claims on specific foods that serve them well.

Define target food. It has no meaning on this thread

reply to post by colin42

Then you have failed again because the little you have repeated over and over again without any evidence or logic has no other value than entertainment.

I can see how it might be viewed as such as some people on here are thick.

Here you follow the above with a great example. Ever heard the song from Evita, Send In The Clowns? Well you just did that.

Your opinion does not determine if something is wrong or right, its the evidence against my claims, which right now has been zero.

Time and again you have had shown to you that these people are fiction writers and Pye is especially fake until he makes his so called evidence available to the scientific community. He wont. Just like you he spouts what he wants people to believe is true. He does it to sell books. You do it for free. Tragic.

And like I have said time again, Pyes findings are a matter of public record as the human genome is not locked up tight somewhere in a safe. So again your back is against the wall on this one and its a lame excuse.

If you really dont accept anything without proof and not based on assumption then you should put this scientists postulation around telepathy on hold until he has some. But no what we find is it suits your silly fantasy and so you accept no questions asked.

The work is done, the findings are conclusive. He was able to get a sympathetic response from someone else in an alternate room. I don't see you giving explanations as to something else that could have caused it, all your saying is put it on hold. Well I have news for you, it has all ready been on hold for far to long. We have had this ability locked up in our heads since the begining of our life here on earth, I think its time for this ability to come out. No more waiting, but you can sit back and deny all you want. When someone does figure out one day how to acivate this ability, your welcome to skip your chance and tell them you want to wait some more time.

So tell me. What value other than entertainment do you think you have to offer?

I think setteling our understanding about how we got here and the fact that we have disabled abilitys are a pretty high piriorty. It is entertaining though to see you try to dismiss it all though.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I like how you totally ignored all of my questions.

reply to post by flyingfish

Proof your back is against the wall by your blatant dishonesty.

If it were predictable, they would be able to look at our own DNA and determine how each section evolved, but they can't.

More dishonesty. You have been given fruit fly life span (30 days) as an example to observe generational changes throughout this thread. This is were you bring out more of your semantics by saying something stupid like "it never has been observed in humans".
Take note: This is just ONE example among hundreds that are demonstrable. DO NOT reply back with worthless semantics.

Then please show me something that claims evolution has been witnessed in humans. And please don't send me any garbage like a man turns a woman down for sex, thats sexuall selection.

More lies and semantics. The first link on the first page deals with bioclimate envelope modelling and its foundations in ecological niche theory.
Take note: This is just ONE example among hundreds that are demonstrable. DO NOT reply back with worthless semantics

The only thing I got out of it was that its an unproven theory.

You do not need to test my skills I do not duel in ignorant semantics. I know you feel you have mastered this worthless skill but it has no foundation in this forum. For this reason I will not respond to rest of your ignorant diatribe.

Disclaimer: If you cannot back up your argument with any objective evidence DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST. Just cause you believe it or not- IS NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE

I'm still waiting for the smoking gun too.

BTW as far as testing your skills, You might have over looked the fact that the post wasnt directed at you. That might be a skill you can work on.

reply to post by colin42

I know one of your religious rituals is to lie as often as possible but hey. Make some of them believable please. The truth is you have been given countless examples of mans relationships with all life on this planet direct and indirect. And please. When you decide to lie like this leave my name out of it you troll.

The only lame examples you gave were of wolves and house sparrows.

Both turned out to be false examples.

Wolves do not share a natural relationship with us, in fact all I could find on google about it was people getting attacked by wolves.

The house sparrow would disapear from our sight if we all chose to live in a cave, therefore they are not attracted to the humans, they are attracted to the homes we are building. Again its proof there is no relationship between us.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I can see how it might be viewed as such as some people on here are thick.

Only one and you know who you are.

Your opinion does not determine if something is wrong or right, its the evidence against my claims, which right now has been zero.

Neither does yours yet you write:

So they are wrong, and you are wrong, my view on this is dead on.

Another two faced, double standard outlook from you then.

And like I have said time again, Pyes findings are a matter of public record as the human genome is not locked up tight somewhere in a safe. So again your back is against the wall on this one and its a lame excuse.

Nope. Again you ignore the facts to fuel your silly religion. Only to be expected from you.

The work is done, the findings are conclusive.

You must have been the worst science major in the history of science. Did you get an award?

I think setteling our understanding about how we got here and the fact that we have disabled abilitys are a pretty high piriorty. It is entertaining though to see you try to dismiss it all though.

At last we find common ground. I also believe from the evidence you have provided that you have disabled abilities. The ability to read what is written, disabled. The ability to learn anything, Disabled. The ability to seperate fantasy from fact, disabled. The ability to tell a lie fully functional to the nth degree.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The only lame examples you gave were of wolves and house sparrows.

So you say but I quote you.

Your opinion does not determine if something is wrong or right, its the evidence against my claims, which right now has been zero.

Wolves do not share a natural relationship with us, in fact all I could find on google about it was people getting attacked by wolves.

Really so you dont recall all the links I provided you on wolves? Oh wait you ran like a yellow dog from that one didnt you. Your ability to use google also seems to have been disabled. Here's a few from a brief search.
How wolves became mans best friend
Snip:

It is believed that Wolves and Prehistoric man somehow developed a relationship somewhere around 15,000 years ago.

The Evolution and Domestication of wolves

House Sparrow Snip:

Heavily associated with man, found in city to remote rural farms.
"Wherever people build, sooner or later House Sparrows come to share their abodes."

The house sparrow would disapear from our sight if we all chose to live in a cave, therefore they are not attracted to the humans, they are attracted to the homes we are building. Again its proof there is no relationship between us.

The house sparrow disapearing from sight if we chose to live in a cave means the house sparrows relationship is with man you clot. Your own words prove me right and you wrong

Geeze this is not a debate its a slaughter house where you are the one being slaughtered post after post.

reply to post by colin42

Really so you dont recall all the links I provided you on wolves? Oh wait you ran like a yellow dog from that one didnt you. Your ability to use google also seems to have been disabled. Here's a few from a brief search.
How wolves became mans best friend

It's a piece done about natural selection, so of course they are going to say we had a relationship with them. Find one that agrees with you that is unbiased.

Besides, the claim of developing of relationship could by anything from man getting his arm ripped off to getting bit in the face. They aren't going into detail. Not sure if you noticed that important part that is missing.

From reading your link its also a might have been rather than any factual proof.

House Sparrow

You realy should read your own links. You will notice that they build there homes in our man made structures, and not in the humans bodys themselves. In addition to this, they also eat our food scraps. So there is cupboard love going on here which is a dead give away with any species. Hey colin I have a fish tank, and when I put my finger in the tank the fish come over and start nibbling on me. From the evolutionists point of view you would try to claim there is a relationship there but in fact its just cupboard love. I feed them, so they love me.

The house sparrow disapearing from sight if we chose to live in a cave means the house sparrows relationship is with man you clot. Your own words prove me right and you wrong

No I meant from the sight of man you idiot. In other words they would not follow me to the cave, but after reading the wiki I could be wrong as there is cupboard love involved which means they might in fact follow us to the cave.

Only becuase of food however.

Your the only one being slaughtered here. Wolves clearly have no relationship with man and never have, at least not in an amicable way, and the tree sparrow is just chasing us for food, or supports to live in. Another thing to consider is that they could be attracted to the type of wood thats being used for buildings as its easy and convenient for them to use. On top of us feeding them.

reply to post by colin42


Here is a perfectly good example of how bad you can lie and believe your own lies.

Wolves are NOT friendly to humans. Please note the plethora of links that indicate so...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.aws.vcn.com...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.dailymotion.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.wildsentry.org...

articles.latimes.com...

www.kxly.com...

www.treehugger.com...

wilderness-urban-survival.blogspot.com...

www.spiegel.de...

blogs.denverpost.com...

www.theblaze.com...

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/01/14/HOGCRGL75U1.DTL

articles.ktuu.com...

wallowa.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm going to stop with the links for now.
I allready posted these before.
I can't believe you can be such a knucklehead to think that wolves are our friends. I will say one thing Colin, if you honestly believe the garbage you try to convince me of on this thread, I do know how your going to die. You will be to trusting with wild life and get eaten. These links are ALL real I looked at all of them, and except for one which is about a movie. They are all about attacks on humans. Now try to tell me that man has a relationship with these. I guess your still right, we do in fact have a relationship with them, a bloody one.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's a piece done about natural selection, so of course they are going to say we had a relationship with them. Find one that agrees with you that is unbiased.

Another of your stupid retorts. Its about the relationship with wolves that you say does not exist but here you go again running away.

Besides, the claim of developing of relationship could by anything from man getting his arm ripped off to getting bit in the face. They aren't going into detail. Not sure if you noticed that important part that is missing.

Nope. Its about the relationship with wolves you say does not exist. Also about your fear of dogs. Your such a scardey cat. Grow a pair.

From reading your link its also a might have been rather than any factual proof.

Where do dogs come from?

You realy should read your own links. You will notice that they build there homes in our man made structures, and not in the humans bodys themselves.

That is a lame response even at your low level of intelligence.

In addition to this, they also eat our food scraps. So there is cupboard love going on here which is a dead give away with any species.

Yep and our cereal crops in the fields we plant. Thats a relationship you muppet.

Hey colin I have a fish tank, and when I put my finger in the tank the fish come over and start nibbling on me.

Do me a favour and keep sharks.

From the evolutionists point of view you would try to claim there is a relationship there but in fact its just cupboard love. I feed them, so they love me.

Your wearing out this excuse for continued ignorance. No matter the reason its a relationship. Did you ever go to school? Oops forgot your disabled ability to learn.

No I meant from the sight of man you idiot. In other words they would not follow me to the cave, but after reading the wiki I could be wrong as there is cupboard love involved which means they might in fact follow us to the cave.

You wrote what you wrote and the meaning is clear so you are the idiot. Your facination with abduction and cuboards is a recurring pattern. Time you came out of the closet.

Only becuase of food however.

Ants have a relationship with Aphids. Thats purely for food, its still a relationship. Your pathetic attempts to avoid the truth are what makes you so hilarious

Your the only one being slaughtered here. Wolves clearly have no relationship with man and never have, at least not in an amicable way, and the tree sparrow is just chasing us for food, or supports to live in.

I have shown you evidence that say we have had and have a close relationship with wolves and house sparrows. Now you show me evidence to the contrary not your lame low brow ignorant beliefs.

Another thing to consider is that they could be attracted to the type of wood thats being used for buildings as its easy and convenient for them to use. On top of us feeding them.

You are assuming things again. Let me remind you that you say assumptions with no evidence is not acceptable. Show me the evidence.

Let me remind you that those links that you say you could not find, I found in minutes. Your ritual lying is on a high. The aliens will be pleased.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Giving me a list of links to attacks by wolves proves two things. Your reaching as you have no clue and the other for good or bad we still have a relationship with wolves.

Husbands and wives have a relationship and I can provide you to many more links to one killing the other.

Colin, if you honestly believe the garbage you try to convince me of on this thread, I do know how your going to die. You will be to trusting with wild life and get eaten.

Fantasy again. I bet if you squint your eyes real hard you can even see it happening. What a twonk

These links are ALL real I looked at all of them, and except for one which is about a movie. They are all about attacks on humans. Now try to tell me that man has a relationship with these.

I did above.

I guess your still right, we do in fact have a relationship with them, a bloody one.

Finally a bit of honesty from you. So I win again.

More spilt blood and its all yours again.

reply to post by colin42

Another of your stupid retorts. Its about the relationship with wolves that you say does not exist but here you go again running away.

I just posted a plethora of links proving you wrong, why are YOU running away?

Nope. Its about the relationship with wolves you say does not exist. Also about your fear of dogs. Your such a scardey cat. Grow a pair.

Seriously Colin you need to buddy up with a wolve and see how that goes. I would like to know how it turns out.

Where do dogs come from?

Thats a good question, lets see... Well they don't appear to have any target food and in fact we actually manufacture food for them. Aside from that, just like us they appear to be scavengers in the wild.

So to answer your question, they are either a victim of coextinction or they are not from earth.

That is a lame response even at your low level of intelligence.

Seriously it would help if you read your own links.

Yep and our cereal crops in the fields we plant. Thats a relationship you muppet.

It sure is, but its a forced relationship you idiot.

Your wearing out this excuse for continued ignorance. No matter the reason its a relationship. Did you ever go to school? Oops forgot your disabled ability to learn.

It's a forced relationship, its not natural you moron.

You wrote what you wrote and the meaning is clear so you are the idiot. Your facination with abduction and cuboards is a recurring pattern. Time you came out of the closet.

A closet is not a cupboard you ignit, at least you admitting this tells me you don't the difference between where you keep your dishes and your clothes.

Ants have a relationship with Aphids. Thats purely for food, its still a relationship. Your pathetic attempts to avoid the truth are what makes you so hilarious

They sure do, which I see no connection with our conversation and this fact.

I have shown you evidence that say we have had and have a close relationship with wolves and house sparrows. Now you show me evidence to the contrary not your lame low brow ignorant beliefs.

I showed you evidence a long time ago, but you keep ignoring it. Way back when I was suggesting you go through counseling.

You are assuming things again. Let me remind you that you say assumptions with no evidence is not acceptable. Show me the evidence.

Let me remind you that those links that you say you could not find, I found in minutes. Your ritual lying is on a high. The aliens will be pleased

You mean the links I posted?

reply to post by colin42

Giving me a list of links to attacks by wolves proves two things. Your reaching as you have no clue and the other for good or bad we still have a relationship with wolves.

Husbands and wives have a relationship and I can provide you to many more links to one killing the other.

Well that would be wolves killing wolves, when I'm actually talking about wolves attacking humans.

We are different species in case you didn't know.

Fantasy again. I bet if you squint your eyes real hard you can even see it happening. What a twonk

From what I have been able to gather in getting to know you and your judgment on here, you are the type of guy that would crawl into a lion cage or a bear cage at the zoo because you are certain we are all the same species and can coexist in the same habitat. Mark my words Colin your a little to friendly with wild life.

Finally a bit of honesty from you. So I win again.

More spilt blood and its all yours again.

So you agree we actually don't have a good relationship with wolves.

reply to post by itsthetooth

If it were predictable, they would be able to look at our own DNA and determine how each section evolved, but they can't.

So you need science to prove evolution of each section of DNA to prove evolution is predictable? Yet you cite the bible and your own unproven ideas of intervention as proof.
If we apply YOUR standards to science we would still be living in caves worshiping spaghetti monsters.

Then please show me something that claims evolution has been witnessed in humans. And please don't send me any garbage like a man turns a woman down for sex, thats sexuall selection.

Why would I send you information you have already dismissed. You have not even addressed evidence presented to you with anything near creditability. I you want to debate then learn the rules first.

The only thing I got out of it was that its an unproven theory. I'm still waiting for the smoking gun too.

That's your problem I'm not here to teach you reading comprehension.
If you spent the time to understand the information given to you instead of putting all that effort into semantic spin, you might learn something.

BTW as far as testing your skills, You might have over looked the fact that the post wasnt directed at you. That might be a skill you can work on.

Funny coming from a guy who can overlook the mountain in front of his face.
BTW if you post a reply/comment to flyingfish I'm going to assume it was directed at me, otherwise directly post to whom your question was directed at.
Just saying.

Creation is constantly evolving.

End of thread. Thanks for the contributions.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How can you expect people to take you serious if you keep on pretending Pye or the bible is real objective evidence?

You saying humans aren't related to other species is moronic btw...

Depends on what you mean by related. I think people have taken it to extreme, and assumed that since we do share a lot of the same DNA with other life, that we must be related. Again a bunch of creators could have been the cause for this.

Yet you presented zero credible evidence proving that while the theory of evolution proves just that relation

The following problems, when solved by the reader, will deepen the conviction that evolution is impossible. The erroneous guesses by evolutionists may be checked up and disproved by mathematical problems. No stronger proof could well be devised. For pattern solutions, refer to the preceding text. A reward will be given to the first person who points out a material error. Test, verify or correct the following solutions-- 1. If the first human pair lived 2,000,000 years ago, as the evolutionists claim, and the population has doubled itself in every 1612.51 years (one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase), what would be the present population of the globe? Answer: 18,932,139,737,991 followed by 360 figures; or 18, 932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,i37,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion. 2. If the first human pair lived 100,000 years ago (a period much less than evolution required), what would be the present population at the same low rate of increase? Answer: 4,660,210,253,138,204,000; or 2,527,570,733 times as many as are living now. 3. At the above rate of increase how many human beings would have survived in the 517i years since Noah? Answer: 9. How many Jews, in the 3850 years since Jacob's marriage? Answer: 5. 4. If the human race doubled its numbers every 168.3 years since Noah became a father (5177 years) what would be the population of the globe? Answer: 1,804,187,000--just what it is. 5. If the Jews doubled their numbers every 161.251 years since Jacob's marriage (3850 years ago), how many Jews would there have been in 1922? Answer: 15,393,815, just the number reported. 6. What guess of man's age can stand the test of mathematics? Answer: Not a single guess ever made assigning a great age to man--nothing greater than the age indicated by the Scriptures; 2,000,000, or 1,000,000, or 100,000 years are clearly out of the question. 7. If life began 60,000,000 years ago, and the human race 2,000,000 years ago, how much sub-normal should have been the brain and mind of man at that time? Answer: 1/30 or 3 1/3%; or 962/3% normal; or 1450 c.c., counting 1500 c.c. normal--more nearly normal than many nations now. 8. How much if life began 500,000,000 years ago? Answer: .4%; or 99.6% normal; or 1494 c.c., far more c.c than a large part of mankind can claim 9. If man had, in 58,000,000 years, developed only the same skull capacity as the other members of the simian family (not over 600 c.c.), how much must he have gained in 2,000,000 years? Answer: 900 c.c., which is a development 43.5 times as rapid in 2,000,000 years as in the 58,000,000 years preceding. How could that be? 10. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, how would the rapidity of skull and brain development in 2,000.000 years compare with that of the 498,000,000 years preceding? Answer: 373.5 times as great. 11. If the skull of the pithecanthropus was two-thirds normal, or 1000 c.c., how many years ago must it have lived, in case life began 60,000,000 years ago? Answer: 20,000,000; in case life began 500,000,000 years ago? Answer: 166,666,666. 12. If the Piltdown "man" had a normal skull capacity of 1070 c.c., as claimed, how long ago did he live, if life had begun 60,000 years ago? Answer: 17,200,000 years. If 500,000,000 years ago? Answer 143,333,333 years. 13. If the Neanderthal man had a capacity of 1408 c.c. (assigned by Dr. Osborn), how many years ago must he have lived if 60,000,000 years have passed since life began? Answer: 3,680,000; if 500,000,000 years? Answer: 30,666,666. If 1800 c.c. be taken as normal instead of 1500 c.c. as some insist, these great periods since these "ape-men" existed must be enormously increased, in some cases 50%. 14. If, on the other hand, the pithecanthropus really lived 750,000 years ago, what, with normal development, should have been its skull capacity, if life began 60,000,000 ago? Answer: 98.75%; or 1481 c.c. If life began 500,000,000 years ago? Answer: 99.85%; or 1497.77 c.c. In either case, practically normal. 15. If the Piltdown "man" lived 150,000 years ago, as claimed, what should have been his brain capacity, if life has lasted 60,000,000 years? Answer: 9g.75%; or 1496.25 c.c. If 500,000,000 years? Answer: 9997%; or 1499.55 c.c. Very nearly normal. The above problems prove either that these alleged links could not have lived in the periods assigned them, or else they must have had a brain capacity almost normal, and far greater than assigned to them. 16. The habitable countries of the world total 50,670,837 sq. mi. If we estimate that the garden of Eden occupied 10,000 sq. mi. or 6,400,000 acres, there would be 5067 such areas in the world. What chance would Moses have, not knowing, to guess the correct location? Answer: 1 chance out of 5067--virtually none at all. FIND THIS AT: www.ldolphin.org...

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Creation is constantly evolving.

End of thread. Thanks for the contributions.

Yet you presented zero proof that "it" was created by anything but natural forces

reply to post by wakeupamerica777


Nice copy/paste post...but all it shows is that the original author not only doesn't understand the theory of evolution, but also that he has not the slightest clue about quantitative methods and math