Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by MrXYZ

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

Nature= God

God is not some man. Its evolution, creation, the perfect infinite program the drives everything.

ty.

Here is your quote again " "it was CREATED by anything but NATURAL FORCES"
"it" was created by anything but natural forces".

God is that natural force. Welcome to the first steps of understanding.

reply to post by MrXYZ
Since the Universe is controlled by mathematics the information I found seems to fit the topic. You ask how we can prove evolution is not viable,,,, the universe bares witness to it's creator by the numbers involved. If you do the math,,, and prove the information I shared wrong, please,,, don't hesitate to let me/us know your findings,,, I'd be extremely interested to know!

I dont understand the argument here. Everything in the universe was created. Call it science call it math, call it chaos call it allah call it god call it what you will, its all the same thing, its the meaning you place behind the word and peoples many different interpretations or small minded imaginations attempting to comprehend the incomprehensible that seems to be the argument.

Replace God with the world nature and the argument shall cease.

reply to post by flyingfish

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.

Who says we ever started there?

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.

Sorry but everything I have read is clear that the garbage being trolled on this thread is unproven. There are variations of it in what I have read but most of that is hypothesis.

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

Of course I wouldn't have it any other way.

reply to post by MrXYZ

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

Your not understanding the structure in what was presented. Evolution only stands if there is nothing else to believe in.

You see most people feel like they have to believe in something. I don't and I think its stupid but I'm just saying.

Anyhow if we aren't from here, and my content proves that, then there is no way that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes. In other words evolution couldn't exist in the way we are believeing it too.

According to the understanding of evolution, we were spring chickens at one point and grew four times the brain matter, almost over night. Left no trace of the change to boot as we aren't able to find any unilatteral fossils. There has to be a fossil out there that shares more DNA between apes and humans, well provided we evolved, but we didn't.

The lack of evidence is overwhelming and exposes all of the hypothesis of evolution for what they really are, a sham. I strongly believe that the witnessed changes in species have nothing to do with the understanding of evolution, but are just natural changes that normally occur within that species. I think scientists are seeing changes and saying "viola!." We have evolution. I understand that evolution is change, but I'm saying not all of it, and it obviously can't be identified as such either.

As far as relation proving evolution, your assuming, and its honeslty what I have caught everyone on this thread doing at some point. Quit assuming and honestly start looking at what few facts you do have and what they honestly mean. Of course some scientists are going to claim they have found evolution, its what they want. You have to seriously look at the facts they are presenting, not assume they are correct because you want it to be so bad. Another example here is my view on DR Michael Persingers telepathy as a fact. After I read the details it was a slam dunk decision, there is no way in hell that 3rd party could have triggered a sypathetic response as though he was having something shined into his eyes, like the main person was. There minds were linked is the only explanation.

Now I told everyone on this thread long before this article came out that we have hidden powers and abilitys, now a scientist is coming out confirming it. You need to seriously need to get up to speed here on whats going on. And a good start is to start understanding the bible the way it was meant to be understood, from the perspective of intervention.

Or if I'm wrong you can just say I'm a predicter of the future and was able to know before hand that they would claim we have hidden powers as a fact, its your call.

Originally posted by wakeupamerica777
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Since the Universe is controlled by mathematics the information I found seems to fit the topic. You ask how we can prove evolution is not viable,,,, the universe bares witness to it's creator by the numbers involved. If you do the math,,, and prove the information I shared wrong, please,,, don't hesitate to let me/us know your findings,,, I'd be extremely interested to know!

The universe isn't controlled by math! Math is simply how us humans try to express physical laws. And that post you copy/pasted was obviously written by a clown who has no clue about math. For example, he completely ignores the FACT that population growth isn't uniform but rather progressive. That alone nullified his entire nonsense post.

reply to post by wakeupamerica777


I said it before, I'll say it again. By my guesstimation, it would take us trillions of years to have evolved in the way precieved.

Problem is earth isn't even that old, so you have two choices here, either we didn't evolve, or we aren't from here.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Anyhow if we aren't from here, and my content proves that, then there is no way that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes. In other words evolution couldn't exist in the way we are believeing it too. 

NOTHING you posted proves the claims you make, you only reference clowns like Pye who are demonstrably wrong, and the bible which isn't even objective evidence

And the theory of evolution clearly proves we share a common ancestor with today's apes...he'll, we are still evolving.

According to the understanding of evolution, we were spring chickens at one point and grew four times the brain matter, almost over night. Left no trace of the change to boot as we aren't able to find any unilatteral fossils. There has to be a fossil out there that shares more DNA between apes and humans, well provided we evolved, but we didn't. 

What understanding, yours? Because that's not what the theory says at all. I really hope you ordered those free DVDs because with ever post you make it clear how little you actually understand about the theory. There's a crazy amount of proof showing changes over millions and billions of years...it's just that you chose to ignore all of it to help Pye sell more fiction ebooks.

The lack of evidence is overwhelming and exposes all of the hypothesis of evolution for what they really are, a sham. I strongly believe that the witnessed changes in species have nothing to do with the understanding of evolution, but are just natural changes that normally occur within that species. I think scientists are seeing changes and saying "viola!." We have evolution. I understand that evolution is change, but I'm saying not all of it, and it obviously can't be identified as such either. 

You still don't get the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, and after over 390 pages this really makes me worry about your brain

Quit assuming and honestly start looking at what few facts you do have and what they honestly mean. 

Oh the irony is strong in this one

DR Michael Persingers telepathy as a fact

Yet you conveniently ignore the FACT that his experiment doesn't hold up in peer review, and that the experimental setup has been criticized strongly. Then again, we already know you don't care about facts if they go against the bat# crazy cult of tooth

reply to post by MrXYZ

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

Really, I think he was dead on. Besides no one ever answered me on how we ended up with this HAR1 region in our DNA ***** thats not found in any other living species here on the planet***, so where the hell did it come from? Probably the same place flagellum came from.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by wakeupamerica777

 

I said it before, I'll say it again. By my guesstimation, it would take us trillions of years to have evolved in the way precieved.

Problem is earth isn't even that old, so you have two choices here, either we didn't evolve, or we aren't from here.

Well, lucky for us we don't need to rely on guesses and can simply analyze facts instead of having to accept the fiction cult of tooth made up by someone who clearly has no clue about what he's talking about.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

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

Really, I think he was dead on. Besides no one ever answered me on how we ended up with this HAR1 region in our DNA ***** thats not found in any other living species here on the planet***, so where the hell did it come from? Probably the same place flagellum came from.

And once again you don't know what you're talking about

The region is found in chimps (and even chickens), it's just different. You know, like us having opposable thumbs while chickens don't.

reply to post by MrXYZ

And once again you don't know what you're talking about

The region is found in chimps (and even chickens), it's just different. You know, like us having opposable thumbs while chickens don't.

Dude your high. HAR1 is indigenous to humans ONLY. I watched a whole special about it on discovery.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

Your post was answered in full. What's up, is your disabled reading ability playing you up?

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

I must really be getting to you if you keep having fantasies of my death.

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.

Define target food as it has no meaning. A victim of 'coextinction'? Please define, never heard of it. They are not from earth?? but you have maintained in the past a dog is a wolf and no matter how we alter them they will always be. Was that another of your ritural lies then?

Seriously it would help if you read your own links.

Seriously, you are very limited when it comes to your reading ability. Your disabled learning ability is plain to see.

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

ITS A RELATIONSHIP you silly childish pudding. You have already admitted we have a relationship with wolves now sparrows. Well done.

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

Thanks but you have already admitted its a relationship.

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.

And your name calling and insults tell me you are throwing another childish hissy because you know your wrong. I still think you should face your fears and come out of the closet.

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

No you wouldnt as you have no ability to do so, its been disabled. But as you agree the ant has a relationship with the aphid thats another win for me whether its beyond your ability to understand or not.

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

Evidence is not you saying 'I dont believe it, its not natural' remember your rules. Assumptions are not acceptable.

You mean the links I posted?

That was a start to your enlightenment but actually the conflicts between man and the wolf was not in question. You denied we had a long standing relationship with wolves. I showed evidence that we have. Backed it up with the dog which shows we must have had that very relationship. You went into denial as usual but then showed another relationship we have with wolves. And admitted it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

And once again you don't know what you're talking about

The region is found in chimps (and even chickens), it's just different. You know, like us having opposable thumbs while chickens don't.

Dude your high. HAR1 is indigenous to humans ONLY. I watched a whole special about it on discovery.

Again, HAR1 only pertains to the degree of difference, it's not only humans having it. Do yourself a favour and read up on it a bit more before making yourself look stupid.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I just did for the heck of it, and wiki is saying there is a hell of a lot of difference in the sequence between us and chimps. The program I watched made it clear that there was no way we could have evolved based on HAR1.

reply to post by colin42

I must really be getting to you if you keep having fantasies of my death.

It's not so much your death as it is a reality check.

Define target food as it has no meaning. A victim of 'coextinction'? Please define, never heard of it. They are not from earth?? but you have maintained in the past a dog is a wolf and no matter how we alter them they will always be. Was that another of your ritural lies then?

Wolves are related to dogs, thats not to say that dogs are wolves.

We have a relationship with dogs, which again is cupboard love.

Coextinction just means something else that went extinct because something else did. Again I tried to explain to you that every living thing is suppose to be dependant on other living things, in an eco balance. Except humans of course, we don't seem to be a part of any cycle unless we create it.

ITS A RELATIONSHIP you silly childish pudding. You have already admitted we have a relationship with wolves now sparrows. Well done.

You must have forgotten out disagreement over the whole idea of it not being a natural relationship. It's man provoked so it doesn't count. Now if the birds and wolves flocked to humans even if they didn't feed them or give them a place to live, then ya, you would be correct, but your not. It's cupboard love.

This goes back to the field mouse, if you leave food at your door, and that attracks a field mouse, does he all of a sudden convert to a door mouse ??? No, although I'm sure thorugh your eyes of evolution it is a relationship, but in fact its a forced one, so its not natural.

No you wouldnt as you have no ability to do so, its been disabled. But as you agree the ant has a relationship with the aphid thats another win for me whether its beyond your ability to understand or not

So your finally seeing how things are suppose to be in an eco balance anyhow, so its actually a win for me. You can't elude the truth for too long Colin there is to much of it in front of your face even though you don't want to see it.

That was a start to your enlightenment but actually the conflicts between man and the wolf was not in question. You denied we had a long standing relationship with wolves. I showed evidence that we have. Backed it up with the dog which shows we must have had that very relationship. You went into denial as usual but then showed another relationship we have with wolves. And admitted it.

I guess that depends on what you were assuming.

I know that we have a poor relationship with wolves and they usually bite and attack us. Now if you want to call that a relationship in itself, than your wrong, because that wasn't what I was thinking of in terms of how you presented it. You were making it sound like we have an association with them, you never said a bloody type.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

It must be really hard for you living in a world with all the disabled abilities you have. I am sorry to point out that yet again that your disabled reading ability has let you down as I never mentioned wolves attacking wolves.

If you are commenting on husband and wives. We were talking about relationships so the comparison was valid but hey thats probably above your comprehension as well.

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.

Your making assumptions again. Your judgment is ,lets just say another disabled ability.

I must say you are getting very creepy with your obsession around my death so you had best keep these wierdo fantasies to yourself from now on.

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

The point is we have a relationship with wolves. Look you have already confessed you were wrong and that I was right, stop grovelling.

We have and have had a long relationship with the wolf. We now both agree this. I have again proved you wrong and you need to accept that and move on.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I dont understand the argument here. Everything in the universe was created. Call it science call it math, call it chaos call it allah call it god call it what you will, its all the same thing, its the meaning you place behind the word and peoples many different interpretations or small minded imaginations attempting to comprehend the incomprehensible that seems to be the argument.

Replace God with the world nature and the argument shall cease.

This thread as you may know was renamed. It is about sharing views on different ideas on how to explain the diverstiy we see around us today without refering to evolution.

It has been infected by a person with disabled abilities called tooth who not only refuses to discuss the topic he insists on persuing his ritural of lying.

This thread is not about creation unless that is how you explain diversity and is most certainly not meant to be about Evolution of man. The diversity of life is much bigger than that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's not so much your death as it is a reality check.

Look I have warned you nicely. Keep your pervy fantasy's to yourself. Your creepy ability seems not to have been disabled but you need to keep it in check.

Wolves are related to dogs, thats not to say that dogs are wolves.

Another U turn How can they be related to wolves if they as you wrote previously are not from here?
Dogs and wolves can breed and produce viable young. They are the same. Wolfdog
If they are from here and related to wolves then we must have had a relationship with wolves and still do.

We have a relationship with dogs, which again is cupboard love.

ITS A RELATIONSHIP. You can tag whatever you like on the front or end but it remains a relationship.

Coextinction just means something else that went extinct because something else did.

Yes just wanted to see if you knew. So how would dogs be victims of coextinction?

Again I tried to explain to you that every living thing is suppose to be dependant on other living things, in an eco balance.

Ah the ritual lie. No you called me a fool when I told you all life was dependant on all other life. Another win for me even if you wont admit it. We revisited balanced eco systems a page or two ago. You lost the argument again.

Except humans of course, we don't seem to be a part of any cycle unless we create it.

Tut tut. Assumption again. Proof please or it did not happen.

You must have forgotten out disagreement over the whole idea of it not being a natural relationship.

Nope you called it the an unnatural relationship (A bit like your fantasy around me). You also failed to show why you believed it was not natural. You lost the point.

It's man provoked so it doesn't count.

Says you but remember your comment about one person not being judge and jury. Your silly restriction was rejected by all. You lost that point.

This goes back to the field mouse, if you leave food at your door, and that attracks a field mouse, does he all of a sudden convert to a door mouse ??? No, although I'm sure thorugh your eyes of evolution it is a relationship, but in fact its a forced one, so its not natural.

396 pages and this is the level of your understanding of evolution. Are you really sure you are a borderline genius?

So your finally seeing how things are suppose to be in an eco balance anyhow, so its actually a win for me.

No mention was made of eco balance, your disabilities are letting you down again. You celebrated your win too soon. What a pity.

You can't elude the truth for too long Colin there is to much of it in front of your face even though you don't want to see it.

Coming from you that means absolutely nothing You are funny.

I know that we have a poor relationship with wolves and they usually bite and attack us. Now if you want to call that a relationship in itself, than your wrong, because that wasn't what I was thinking of in terms of how you presented it. You were making it sound like we have an association with them, you never said a bloody type.

I take it your comment on blood type is just because your ability to make sense is disabled.
You have already agreed we have a relationship with wolves and a long standing one at that. Your backsliding just highlights your dishonesty. But hey it is part of your religion to lie.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I just did for the heck of it, and wiki is saying there is a hell of a lot of difference in the sequence between us and chimps. The program I watched made it clear that there was no way we could have evolved based on HAR1.

Like I said, HAR1 only pertains to the difference in the genome sequence, and NOT like you wrongfully stated that chimps don't have it at all. So in the end, you were clearly wrong. Citing a program doesn't give you any more credibility either unless you post an original excerpt because clearly you are very prone to misinterpreting science if I fits your personal religion.

And of course our genome sequences are slightly (!!!) different than those of chimps, just like the ones of sharks and tuna. Still doesn't prove any of your claims though, just like NOTHING you posted in around 400 pages has