Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

My answer is why you can't offer an honest reply.

I guess I also missed the part where it says its ok to assume it also happens in humans. Your ingnorance is not accepted.

(that’s spelt ignorance not ingnorance) I see you are still rejecting everything based on your ignorance. Well at least you have admitted it now.

YOUR ignorance is not accepted.

It's a metaphor, I'm assuimg you know what that is.

Nope evolution is a word. I know you don’t have a clue what that word is.

You have fallen off track, AGAIN, I wasn't talking about evolution.

Then you just agreed that intervention did occur to us, and they did in fact alter our DNA, thanks for finally agreeing.

You really are desperate, how do you get the above from: 'Again: Evolution is a word. It cannot change DNA. Have you been reading any of the posts you reply too?'
Ah I remember you reject everything from ignorance. A statement by you. You had better add to that your dishonesty

Because there is not other choice for our tampered DNA.

Therefore intervention is the only way it could have, yay, you got it finally.

Illustrates how you come to all of your conclusions. Don’t worry about what is written make your fantasy fit. You failed again. You do highlight your insanity and desperation around a word and how dishonest you are prepared to be to hide from it. How tragic.

Its even more true when your agreeing with me.

I know a lot more about it than you do, thats for sure. Of course I have read a lot about it.

I see no evidence of that understanding. I do see evidence even in this reply that you have a very limited ability to understand the written word. Couple that with your admission: Reply to this post by tooth

I don't believe in the written word. All religion is false in my understanding.

So your term is not accepted out of ignorance

That leaves me with very little confidence you know how to tie shoe laces let alone understand DNA.

You must not know much if your comparing tying your shoelaces to understanding DNA.

Yet its never been proven that evolution is the reason for these changes. They just find changes, and assume its evolution. Like I explained earlier that my friend who has ADHD because his mother smoked witle pregnant with him, would appear to be a change, therefore evolutionists would chalk ADHD up to evoltuion, which is false.

Another answer by you from ignorance despite having this fully explained. Makes your claim of knowledge of DNA a little hollow don’t you think. I refer you back to that answer.

The ONLY PERSON that has even commented on this example, told me, no it would not be considered evolution if ADHD caused changes. Since scientists are unable to identify the cause of changes they are looking for in DNA, this means that not all changes are evolution, yet they are being accepted as such. It's a false observation by scientists.

I don't have to, evolutioists confirmed that they don't know by coming up with multiple scenerios that could be the cause of change, mutation, sexuall selection, natural selection, etc...It's all just a guessing game and they have no way to know, much less identify what causes the changes.

That is because there are multiple reasons for that change. But tell me how many times have you posted what you think is true or how you think things work and expect people to believe you? You of all people.

You have had many examples of confirmed and observed speciation but you choose as you say to reject based on your ignorance.

You missed the whole point, again, some of those changes are NOT evolution, and that has been proven by my suggesting the ADHD scenerio. How do we not know that all of the changes are not from evolution. There is no way to know, so scientists just keep assuming.

Humans have fewer chromosomes and less genes so there is no way in hell that we evolved from apes or share a common ancestor.

Fewer than what? You must try to be more coherent. Again we did not evolve from apes. You showcase your ignorance again

Look its real simple ok, in order for us to have evolved from primordeal slime, your genes must have grown in size. There is no way that we share a common ancestor with apes if they have more genes and chromosomes than us. The numbers imply that they rather evolved from us.

reply to post by colin42

There is no DVD on it, and I would be money it would be the most important one if it were true.

A DVD is how you think information is confirmed. Where did you study to be a science major?

Well its not a save all in the idea but I'm sure someone somewhere would be producing a DVD about it. A lot like the idea of peer reviews. I totally dissagree with your assumption that peer reviews are the determination of true and false findings. Granted if others can recreate something, its obviously true, but when they can't it doesn't necessarly mean its false, just suspicious. Not to mention there will always be others that don't agree with the findings and that in itself doesn't not determine truth.

Your just unable to see the big picture in order to understand that if evolution is capable of doing all the things your claiming, then it must have some type of intelligence behind it.

Your denial is so deeply ingrained you don’t see any picture than that of an alien. Evolution is a word. It cannot do anything, it does not have intelligence. IT IS A WORD.

The process evolution clearly describes is lead by natural forces within the environment not some godly intelligence you so desperately desire to comfort your deep set fear of life.

Well that is your observation. It makes no sense that we would have this unilatteral development of other life, in such a way that is unidentifiable.

You could say the same thing about an automotive assembly line. Looking at it from the individual perspective, you could say they are not creating anything because each one of them does a small part like put on a door, or add glass, or install the shocks.

Nope. You could say that and as usual with your analogies you would be wrong. Here is why:


But the finished product is a creation, with intelligence behind it.

There is never a finished product. The organism either goes on to breed and pass its advantages on to the next generation or it dies, selected for by the environment

Except that our planet is currently not revealing any new emerging species for us to witness at this time. I understand its a slow process, which I call BS on for excuses. We also have no bones or fossils that could prove any of this so again I call BS on this.

I meant from YOUR ignorance.

Really? What you wrote was:


So your term is not accepted out of ignorance.

I find that much more of an accurate statement of how you reject all conflicting arguments.

Sometimes you can really be ignorant colin.

I'll never be convinced that all evolution changes are by a mutation. If that were true, we would see a hell of a lot of species that have 4 heads and 10 limbs, but we don't, in fact most if not all are in order.

Spiders have eight legs. Centipedes and millipedes have many more. An Octopus has one main brain and an auxiliary "brain" in each of their 8 tentacles, in effect, 9 heads. We also have many examples of organisms with no heads or limbs at all.

There are thousands of other examples which show your statement above to be again baseless. Grounded in ignorance.

Now you tell me what advantage 4 heads would give?

Your examples, and all others considered might account for 2% of the population, and that is stretching it. Most species on this planet have one head, have two eyes, a mouth, a nose, etc...Your examples are very small in comparison to the +5 million species on this planet.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You have fallen off track, AGAIN, I wasn't talking about evolution.

I know you were trying to offer one of your ignorance based excuses. Evolution still remains a word. It has no hands, eyes. Cannot make decisions and does not create,

Because there is not other choice for our tampered DNA.

Other than the choice science explains without having to even mention intervention.

I don't believe in the written word. All religion is false in my understanding.

The bible is 'the written word' so where does that leave your historical document?

You must not know much if your comparing tying your shoelaces to understanding DNA.

You don’t even appear to understand the meaning of this either: That leaves me with very little confidence you know how to tie shoe laces let alone understand DNA. classic.

The ONLY PERSON that has even commented on this example, told me, no it would not be considered evolution if ADHD caused changes. Since scientists are unable to identify the cause of changes they are looking for in DNA, this means that not all changes are evolution, yet they are being accepted as such. It's a false observation by scientists.

Then you really should refer back to XYZ's reply which you obviously ignored as usual.

Look its real simple ok, in order for us to have evolved from primordeal slime, your genes must have grown in size. There is no way that we share a common ancestor with apes if they have more genes and chromosomes than us. The numbers imply that they rather evolved from us.

414 pages and that is the best piffle you can muster. Oh dear what a disgrace

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well its not a save all in the idea but I'm sure someone somewhere would be producing a DVD about it. A lot like the idea of peer reviews. I totally dissagree with your assumption that peer reviews are the determination of true and false findings. Granted if others can recreate something, its obviously true, but when they can't it doesn't necessarly mean its false, just suspicious. Not to mention there will always be others that don't agree with the findings and that in itself doesn't not determine truth.

Well I tried to read this jumbled, incoherent mess but gave up. Try again.

Well that is your observation. It makes no sense that we would have this unilatteral development of other life, in such a way that is unidentifiable.

Again what the hell are you on about? Are you replying to my point or a buzzing in your head?

Except that our planet is currently not revealing any new emerging species for us to witness at this time.

Except all the examples you have been given, some even supplied by yourself.

I understand its a slow process,

No, you really do not understand it.

which I call BS on for excuses.

Confirmation that you don’t understand it.

We also have no bones or fossils that could prove any of this so again I call BS on this.

Agreed. Your answer is again BS.

Sometimes you can really be ignorant colin.

We all can but only you have written:

So your term is not accepted out of ignorance.

Your examples, and all others considered might account for 2% of the population, and that is stretching it.

You have combined two separate posts again. Very dishonest, what are you trying to hide?

Where did you get that percentage from? So all the insect life, plant life, aquatic life, microbial life accounts for 2% at a stretch? As usual that is a big unfounded stretch by you.

As usual you have given a one line dismissal and not made one comment on the points made.

As usual you did not answer me. 'What advantage 4 heads would offer' even though I used a question mark.

As usual you lost the point.

reply to post by colin42

You have fallen off track, AGAIN, I wasn't talking about evolution.

I know you were trying to offer one of your ignorance based excuses. Evolution still remains a word. It has no hands, eyes. Cannot make decisions and does not create,

Evolution does appear to create. How else could you explain all of the 5 million species we have here. There is no way around understanding that one way or the other, creation is occuring somehow.

Because there is not other choice for our tampered DNA.

Other than the choice science explains without having to even mention intervention

And again if DNA had the ability to change on its own, in nature, then everything we have come to learn and depend on it for, is false. Not that we have never been wrong before. My point is that DNA can't change on its own, there must be a force of some type causing it to happen. Even if its the undisclosed hands of evolution, what ever you want to call it, something has to cause it.

I don't believe in the written word. All religion is false in my understanding.

The bible is 'the written word' so where does that leave your historical document?

I believe in what is written in a literal sense, not a faith, redefined sense.

As an example, when the bible states that earth is not our home, I think thats exactly what it means, not some variation of that like religion does.

You must not know much if your comparing tying your shoelaces to understanding DNA.

You don’t even appear to understand the meaning of this either: That leaves me with very little confidence you know how to tie shoe laces let alone understand DNA. classic.

I don't know everything about DNA but I understand enough to realize that something is very wrong with ours being tampered with.

The ONLY PERSON that has even commented on this example, told me, no it would not be considered evolution if ADHD caused changes. Since scientists are unable to identify the cause of changes they are looking for in DNA, this means that not all changes are evolution, yet they are being accepted as such. It's a false observation by scientists.

Then you really should refer back to XYZ's reply which you obviously ignored as usual

Last I recall he stated that ADHD making changes to DNA was not considered evolution, therefore I was correct.

Look its real simple ok, in order for us to have evolved from primordeal slime, your genes must have grown in size. There is no way that we share a common ancestor with apes if they have more genes and chromosomes than us. The numbers imply that they rather evolved from us.

414 pages and that is the best piffle you can muster. Oh dear what a disgrace

It's actually quite simple. If this planet were evolving, we would have a hell of a lot more species that are closer to each other, rather than seeing mostly very distinctive differences struggling to place association with them. The fact is we have some associations with many species, probably most, but there are very large differences between them. If changes happen in small amounts over long periods of time, we should have a hell of a lot of association, with little difference, and thats not what we have.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

I'll never be convinced that all evolution changes are by a mutation. If that were true, we would see a hell of a lot of species that have 4 heads and 10 limbs, but we don't, in fact most if not all are in order.

AAAAND THAT is what separates you from someone with a scientific perspective. You are a denier, not a skeptic. A skeptic would be happy to be proven wrong. A denier won't believe anything if it doesn't fit into his/her little opinion.

Well seeing how they can't identify or lable the changes, makes it impossible to even know if they are from evolution.

If it's a genetic change that continues throughout the species, then you can bet your bottom dollar that it was because of natural selection. Especially with what I said earlier. Those drug resistant strains of bacteria/diseases didn't die out after one generation. It continued. They still exist.

If this were true, you wouldn't see humans going through the daily grind of adapting, or excuse me, redundant adapting.

Adapting is what you're trying to disprove, right?

We now have proof that flagellum's pump was evolved. We now understand how the eye came to be. Science, it's freaking beautiful.

I wasn't aware that gears and sprockets could evolve, I would love to see more on that.


Here's more info in a format even you can understand. Don't worry about reading and researching, though. It might make your head hurt.

Well intervention proves evolution wrong, as there is no way we could have evolved here if we aren't from here to being with, and we have proof of this as well.

Your response is based on belief and conjecture. Please prove your words. If you want to go scientific with it, we did evolve, but also are from another planet, since when this galaxy was formed by the biggidy bang bang, what eventually came to be all life on planet earth is made of particles from stars and bits not of this planet.

What is this intervention of which you speak. Just one scholarly peer reviewed article is all I ask for.

In conclusion: It's pointless arguing with someone who, as Tooth himself puts it, will never be convinced. Not even with evidence.

Everything you write has been debunked and panned. This quote is just the tip of the iceberg.

Except that our planet is currently not revealing any new emerging species for us to witness at this time. I understand its a slow process, which I call BS on for excuses. We also have no bones or fossils that could prove any of this so again I call BS on this.

More blatant lies.
It's obvious you DON'T understand the process even after it has been explained to you time and time again.
I'm going to give you benefit of the doubt and say you do understand, but instead of admitting it, you would rather spend way to much time and effort on bastardizing the information to try and make it fit your delusion.
Congratulations in your public fail.

I encourage anyone who has been sucked into this guys lies to start with the basics. If your open minded and intelligent you will understand the evidence.

reply to post by Anonymous404

I'll never be convinced that all evolution changes are by a mutation. If that were true, we would see a hell of a lot of species that have 4 heads and 10 limbs, but we don't, in fact most if not all are in order.


AAAAND THAT is what separates you from someone with a scientific perspective. You are a denier, not a skeptic. A skeptic would be happy to be proven wrong. A denier won't believe anything if it doesn't fit into his/her little opinion.

Well now I do, after I have looked at everything that has been presented to me.

Well seeing how they can't identify or lable the changes, makes it impossible to even know if they are from evolution.

If it's a genetic change that continues throughout the species, then you can bet your bottom dollar that it was because of natural selection. Especially with what I said earlier. Those drug resistant strains of bacteria/diseases didn't die out after one generation. It continued. They still exist.

Except that my friend that has ADHD from his mother smoking while pregnant with him, he passed it on to his son, but both him and his wife werent smokers. So what started out as an induced disease, is now able to spread to each generation. And that would appear to be evolution. Of course its not. So I stand on my argument that not all changes are evolution, and since they can't be identified, its possible that none of them are evolution.

If this were true, you wouldn't see humans going through the daily grind of adapting, or excuse me, redundant adapting.

Adapting is what you're trying to disprove, right?

It's more like redundant adaptation disproves evolution.
Anytime we are redundant adapting, its only because we are failing to evolve.

Here's more info in a format even you can understand. Don't worry about reading and researching, though. It might make your head hurt.

Well this was a very nice video and thank you for that. Unfortunatly it's all speculation. It would be nice if they have proof. It's almost as though your presenting this to say that since it's possible that flagellum evolved in these steps, then it must be true. This seems to be the mindset for everything with evolution. Nothing is ever, this is how things are because we witnessed it, but that it appears to be possible therefore it must be how it happened. I think anybody can make anything possible in the mind. I was looking more for facts, or historical documentation saying these gears evolved.

Your response is based on belief and conjecture. Please prove your words. If you want to go scientific with it, we did evolve, but also are from another planet, since when this galaxy was formed by the biggidy bang bang, what eventually came to be all life on planet earth is made of particles from stars and bits not of this planet.

What is this intervention of which you speak. Just one scholarly peer reviewed article is all I ask for.

In conclusion: It's pointless arguing with someone who, as Tooth himself puts it, will never be convinced. Not even with evidence.

Well there are several authors that believe in intervention. Pye is one of them Von daniken, The bible appears to be a missunderstood book on the topic, and Sitchen also looks in this direction.

As far as proof, ya there is proof, its all over the bible that earth is not our home. I don't know why it was taken out of context. Maybe people couldn't fathom the idea of being from another planet. I know some people even today would struggle with the idea, sometimes I do myself. Nonethe less there is ample suggestion in the bible that this is in fact what happened to us.

It's an idea called transpermia. It's not new by any means either. In fact we currently have a meteorite from another planet (I believe mars) that has life within the rock. Actuall biology in the rock.

reply to post by itsthetooth

As for the ADHD tale, I find it hard to believe that that is the case. ADHD is caused by both lifestyle and genetics. It's impossible to pinpoint which "caused" your friend's ADHD without having his entire genome mapped out. If a doctor says that smoking caused it, and then it was passed on, then that doctor is more likely wrong than not.

History doesn't prove scientific theories. Science does.

The christian bible isn't an accurate historical document. There's no proof that the Hebrews were ever enslaved by a pharaoh, escaped, or traveled through the desert for 40 years.

None of the authors you mention have any work on the subject printed in scientific journals, which are, as everyone knows, how scientific work is published, peer reviewed, and tested. Those authors "believe" in it. They don't have proof of it.

But now we have insight into how your little hypotheses came to be. Only reading and believing what helps support your theory. Also the bible, a thoroughly unscientific book written by men, edited by men, and published and translated time and time again by men.

reply to post by Anonymous404


Anytime that other life makes it to another planet, regardless if its accidental or brought here as in our case, it upsets the natural balance of the planet.

Each planet is programmed to house specific life that keeps that planet in an ongoing balance. In addition to this, as you know god alegedly brought many other things here to help us, as in food and other life of animals. As a result this planet is now in its 6th mega extinction.

We have always had the mindset that what ever happens on this planet is natural and normal, we assumed this planet is pristine, but we are in fact wrong. Things brought here, including us, are damaging the planet in a major way. We don't even have any food intended for us here that we can say without a doubt was meant for us. Not to be confused with the fact that there are many things we can eat. Some species have target food and its obvious, but we don't, and a few things here are just like us as well. It's possible that these species were also brought here.

Regardless of what your belief is, that we evolved or were created, one thing you will agree on is that any given species needs food to eat. With careful thought you can analyze this. Some things have food and some don't. We don't. Keeping in mind that we can eat toilet paper, it doesn't mean its our intended food. A target food would be natural, and commonly used, and would provide great importance for health. Milk by far is not one of our foods. Cows milk is an example of us adapting using what we have to replace something that is missing from our intended diets.

So when species and other food are brought to another planet, it will knock off that delicate balance and eventually cause mass extinctions. We also get attacked by the planets natural defenses, which is also why we have such a ramped up medical service. We also take vaccinations to get by some of the planets natural defenses. The longer we are on this planet, the harder this planet will push back and we are going through this right now. As a result people become depressed, suicide, drugs, self medication, drinking, and violence. We will act out as we have no other way to deal with the pressures of this planet pushing on us. If we had a way to get home, well problem solved.

Assumptions were made that extinctions are a natural part of the earths process, and that is incorrect. It defies logic in any belief. If you belive in creation, how could you agree that the simple extinction of life is natural. If you believe in evoltuion going through the motions of creating new life, its the same thing. It's like creating a car but saying that its only natural that it will crash and burn.

Evolution in a twisted way, is also a creator, it does render new species, which is the same outcome as the idea of a creator makin us. I'm going to prove this so there is no confusion. On the angle of a creator, looking at all the life that is here, over 5 million species and even life in the air that we breathe, there is no argument that someone, or something has a love for life. Even from the angle of evolution, the goal is to make new species. Either way you slice it, the goal is the same. It would appear that evolution was nothing more than a speculative way to describe creation while elimanating the creator.

FYI they both could be wrong. If there is a creator, who made the creator. If evolution started life, who started evolution? Each planet must start out, with a plethora of life, to keep that planet in balance, there is simply no other way it could work. It's not easy to see this on our planet because of what was brought here. If god is responsable for doing all this, he did a very bad thing, but probably had his stingy reasons why. There is no way any life can survive on a planet unless there is balance.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Assumptions were made that extinctions are a natural part of the earths process, and that is incorrect. It defies logic in any belief. If you belive in creation, how could you agree that the simple extinction of life is natural. If you believe in evoltuion going through the motions of creating new life, its the same thing. It's like creating a car but saying that its only natural that it will crash and burn.

It's not the same thing. Evolution by natural selection doesn't create new anything. It changed what already exists.

Extinctions have occurred all throughout the earth's history and are still happening everyday. They are a natural process and are not always caused by the earth itself.

The planet has no will or motive. The planet is a friggin ecosystem that simply exists and is being exploited by life on it. The climate is a natural occurrence that is being exploited by life on the planet. The earth doesn't "fight back." It's a cause and effect relationship.

Evolution is nothing like creating a car, for evolution by natural selection isn't creating.

Even from the angle of evolution, the goal is to make new species. Either way you slice it, the goal is the same. It would appear that evolution was nothing more than a speculative way to describe creation while elimanating the creator.

Evolution by natural selection has no goal. There is no sentience about it. It doesn't have a mission, a will, or anything. It's a process and a very natural one at that. There's nothing supernatural about it, unless you think swimming and lightening are supernatural.

Tooth, I think it's fair to say that after over 400 pages of explaining, it's unlikely you're ever going to grasp the nuances of evolution.

reply to post by Anonymous404

It's not the same thing. Evolution by natural selection doesn't create new anything. It changed what already exists.

But it does, as we have over 5 million species here on earth. I understand you think we are all the same species, but even slight differences make us different, thats why we have gametic isolation.

Extinctions have occurred all throughout the earth's history and are still happening everyday. They are a natural process and are not always caused by the earth itself.

In part true, some of these things become coextinctions, which is species falling due to other species falling. It is also one thing that has to be considered when your looking at target food not existing.

The planet has no will or motive. The planet is a friggin ecosystem that simply exists and is being exploited by life on it. The climate is a natural occurrence that is being exploited by life on the planet. The earth doesn't "fight back." It's a cause and effect relationship.

Evolution is nothing like creating a car, for evolution by natural selection isn't creating.

It's an observation of the bigger picture. The planet does have a will as directed by all the life on this planet. An eco system does not just magically evolve, it can't, it has to be formed, just like the disruption of that balance is not natural either.
No the earth doesn't fight back, but its inhabitants do.

Evolution by natural selection has no goal. There is no sentience about it. It doesn't have a mission, a will, or anything. It's a process and a very natural one at that. There's nothing supernatural about it, unless you think swimming and lightening are supernatural.

There is no way that all of the life could have happened on this planet, without direction of some type. We were not all formed from mutations, its just not possible, and if it were, the life on this planet would look a hell of a lot different than it does right now.
For starters we would have a lot closer elements with other life than we do. In addition there would be closer variations of species, which we also don't have. For example we might have humans with two heads, and humans with four legs, or 4 eyes, and there would be populations of these to boot, not just freak accidents.

reply to post by john_bmth

Tooth, I think it's fair to say that after over 400 pages of explaining, it's unlikely you're ever going to grasp the nuances of evolution.


signature:
Does anyone on here who believes in "over unity" devices...
For those who wish to play the science game...

I understand it, I just don't believe it. There is a difference between understanding and believing.
I understand enough of it to know that its just a potfull of theories with only one that is in part proven. IMO it looks more like someones attempt to try to understand how things work without any evidence of it. But also by removing the idea of a creator in the process as well. Perhaps it is an idea for non believers of creators.

Either way they both have their flaws, and its hard to fully accept either one.
I was telling someone on a different thread about a movie I watched on the discovery channel that was claiming planets are formed from gasses, and from what they can tell, there is automatically life on them. So the idea that there is a giant celestial squid in space that poops out planets and life was offered. All hail to Trevor the giant celestial squid.

BTW I love over unity devices, the most recent one I was looking at was the water hammer / water heater pump. Over unity devices are rare but sure do make you feel good because they are such a breakthrough in science.

I understand it, I just don't believe it.

Evolution is not something you believe in, it's somthing you accept as a scientific fact. It's testable, it's falsifiable and it makes predictions. It is the unifying theory of biology, it unites every independent discipline of biology. Advances in any one can be applied to all others using the unified theory of evolution. Almost nothing in biology makes sense without the theory of evolution.
Evolution requires zero faith unlike your alien fantasy world that has been left in the dust of scientific advancement.

reply to post by flyingfish

Evolution is not something you believe in, it's somthing you accept as a scientific fact. It's testable, it's falsifiable and it makes predictions. It is the unifying theory of biology, it unites every independent discipline of biology. Advances in any one can be applied to all others using the unified theory of evolution. Almost nothing in biology makes sense without the theory of evolution.
Evolution requires zero faith unlike your alien fantasy world that has been left in the dust of scientific advancement

So my alien theory in your opinion has been left in the dust. What exactly does that mean? That few people believe in it, therefore it can't be true, or are you claiming that others on this thread have discredited it.
Because none of the aforementioned has happened. Why do you think I'm still on this thread, no one has been able to prove it wrong, and it is written in historical doccuments, so what about that?

Evolution is NOT falsifiable, its a crude guess is all. The only part of the series of theories thats even proven in part is speciation, and thats still in part, not in whole. I can totally see how your imagination has run away with you and caused you to fall into this odd belief. Evolution does require faith as not all of the thoeries have been proven. Changes happen, thats a fact, look at my friend that has ADHD, thats a change. It doesn't mean its from evolution.

No one needs to discredit your alien theory it can't be proven.
This thread is not about proving your delusions wrong anyway.

Evolution is falsifiable, testable and predictable nothing you say is going to change that.
End of story get over it.

reply to post by itsthetooth


We don't have to discredit something to which no credit has ever been given.

Also extinction can occur by over-hunting, or simply the destruction of natural habitats. Usually by humans.

I don't think we are all the same species...that would be most unscientific. I think we may have similar roots. All creatures have come a long way since one of the 5 major extinction events that have occurred over the earth's history.

reply to post by flyingfish

No one needs to discredit your alien theory it can't be proven.
This thread is not about proving your delusions wrong anyway.

Evolution is falsifiable, testable and predictable nothing you say is going to change that.
End of story get over it

Well thats a good point. Just because my alien theory cant be proven, doesn't mean it isn't real. But since you brought it up, there allready is proof, the bible clearly states that this is how we were brought to earth.

How come we don't have any scriptures about evolution?

I'm assuming by delusions you mean all the proof I have posted. Well its funny that you pose it this way because I sure was interested in anyone being able to prove any of it wrong, and no one could. So this was total fail for me.

Evolution is not falsifiable, its a hypothesis, or rather a series of hypothesis that try to support one another. The problem that so many people over look in this is that ANYTIME you have over a dozen theories supporting each other, it raises serious credibility flags. The fact is you can make anything work in the eyes of science with a dozen related theories.

As an example mutations might be known about, but they never proved that it's evolution thats causing them. Aside, speciation in some rare cases is the only thing that has been proved, and its not even complete. They also have no proof if evolution is causing speciation.

Evolution is NOT TESTABLE. Scientists have never been able to prove macro evolution so why do you lie like that.

So I have documentation, and you don't, yet you claim I'm the one with the delusion, I think your the one with the delusion, and you need to get over it.

reply to post by Anonymous404

We don't have to discredit something to which no credit has ever been given.

Well sure there is credit.
The bible is unknowingly the best credit.
Von daniken.
Zecaria Sitchen, and Lloyd Pye.

Now please explain to me how all those listed above are wrong and YOUR correct.

Also extinction can occur by over-hunting, or simply the destruction of natural habitats. Usually by humans.

Over hunting in general no, but as in humans, yes because we don't belong here to begin with. We are aware of it because we run into it to often. In a balance eco system, this would not happen. You would not have to worry about the collapse of a species from eating. A balanced system is a lot more stable than that. Sure you could weaken the numbers but 15 other things would kick in to bring those numbers back up. Its very complicated.

I don't think we are all the same species...that would be most unscientific. I think we may have similar roots. All creatures have come a long way since one of the 5 major extinction events that have occurred over the earth's history.

I'm not sure what you meant here, if your talking about something I said in regards to all of us having to be from the same species.

There are to many holes in the theory of evolution for it to even be possible. As an example, food. When a new species emerges, not that it will as we have never seen any in our lifetime, whats it suppose to eat? The problem here is that you can't say it will eat the same food it used to as its no longer that species, and that would be dipping into that species food, or stealing per se. The problem you start to see unfold in this theory is that to many things will have to become scavengers and eat anything as new species emerge.

A scavenger is not picky about what it eats, like humans, and is a good sign that something is very wrong. You also can't just say that new species will just eat something else, as once again your stepping on someone elses menu. So when I say that things are SUPPOSED to be in a balance, you can see why.