Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

reply to post by MrXYZ

Well, we don't know how life got started in the first place, we only how today's biodiversity came to be.

You can connect the dots anyway you want to but without proof to back up your claims, your just talking trash. The theory I have coined is observed, it would have been nice if evolution would have used this same policy. Evolution has never been witnessed. Imagine that, someone giving birth to a new species, that would be headlines for sure, and with the claims made by evolutionists, we should be stumbling over the proof right now. But we aren't.

Nobody takes those ADHD articles the same way as you because they don't support your claims

I'm sure they read it differently out of convenience.

1) We don't know if there's a purpose...even if there is one.
2) There is no purpose...but why does there have to be one in the first place?

Take your pick, both are equally likely.

Everything in life has a purpose.

Nobody's calling evolution "a mistake" or "chance event"...only creationists who never bothered to read up on the theory anywhere but on pseudo-scientific websites belief that because they DON'T UNDERSTAND the theory in the first place...just like you don't understand it as is evident from your post. And that would be ok if you actually made an attempt at learning honestly about it. Instead you display a hilarious amount of ignorance and come up with made up words and bat# crazy ideas to "make it fit" your nonsense beliefs.

There is nothing bat crazy about observing events that prove a thoery, and if the theory is so wrong, why don't I see anyone debunking it? I have yet to see any information proving that species test and experiment with food before making a choice. I see no one explaining why all species make the same decision as a whole, yet its viewed as a choice. How can evolution not be a creator when its responsible for creating over a billion species?
How can you claim that species actually decided what they want to eat, when they are all making the same decisions? How can you claim species experiment with deciding on food when none of this is every mentioned anywhere on the internet? Where is your proof?

reply to post by colin42

Yep I know. You have already proved you do not understand the difference between religion and science and I thanked you for supplying the example. Enough already.

Since its never been observed, and its not falsifiable, its a belief.

Tut tut tut. You just cannot learn a dam thing can you. You need to let go of your insane hatred for a word long enough to understand this one thing. EVOLUTION IS A WORD. IT DESCRIBES A PROCESS. Will that ever sink in.

When are you going to learn that all processes have a purpose behind them. In this case the most obvious is to make new species, which would just confirm that evolution is a creator.

Nope. You gave your unfounded opinion. Evolution has shown that on many occasions the spread of one species results in the extinction of others. It also shows that the reverse is also true but none of that explains how crazed aliens abducting us and any resulting extinctions means evolution is an invalid description of how life evolves. Do that as you were asked.

Evolution has nothing to do with some species being the hunter while others are the hunted, it was just another section of life that evolutionists wanted to take credit for. If I'm wrong then please prove what connection this has to do with evolution aside from the fact that they claim it to.

You are the only one daft enough to keep writing this and the only one foolish enough to believe it wins you any points. My advice to you is to drop it as it shows you in a very poor light and you are already shouting in the dark.

The only reason I'm shouting in the dark is because your are to afraid to deal with the truth.

only you could think that is a good reply Thanks for agreeing with me though

Exactly, evolution doesn't describe anything

Man have you lost the plot or what. So you agree that all the years of collected observations that form part of the theory of evolution is not fantasy.

I was referring to target food.

Now please provide me with an observed example of target food, your fantasy creation

The wiki on the squirrel diet clearly explains a phase two diet when the squirrel goes hungry and is not able to locate phase one food.

As has been said many times in regards to you. You have no idea of the process of evolution, no clue of the world around you or what science has discovered.

Just because some scientists have played connect the dots doesn't mean they are suppose to be connected.

You just cannot grasp the concept can you? How long did it take you to understand the wheel?

And your having problems with definitions again...

creato

cre·a·tornoun /krēˈātər/ 
creators, plural

1.A person or thing that brings something into existence


2.Used as a name for God

All would apply in this case.

Not only did the wiki article debunk you you do not debate anything wiki or other sources say is so. You seem to be a little conflicted.

The wiki on squirrel clearly explains a phase one diet and what happens when the squirrel goes hungry from that diet. It confirms what I have explained with phase one eating everything in a food group or a large variety, then moving to phase three where they pick up a new food group.

Then why do you insist on being wrong with every post?

If I'm wrong where is your proof? Come to think of it you haven't share anything in a long time, I guess you have been mostly wrong lately.

One last time. A new species evolves from an existing species it is not created from another species and the fact you keep repeating this nonsense again shows how poor your understanding of language is. Look up the word diversity

[url=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbs=dfn:1&sclient=psy-ab&q=diversity&oq=diversity&gs_l=serp.3...363031.364687.2.364906.9.3.0.0.0.0. 1578.1953.3-1j8-1.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.aIWFxkc3QkI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=953c0393afda16ec&bpcl=36601534&biw=1152&bih=559]diversity[/u rl]

di·ver·si·tynoun /diˈvərsitē/  /dī-/ 
diversities, plural

1.The state of being diverse; variety
- there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports


2.A range of different things

It says nothing about evolution in case you didn't know that.

Nope you’re the one with a daddy complex who needs a father figure so badly you close your eyes to everything that challenges it

And you assume wrong once again. A creator doesn't have to be a pers

reply to post by colin42

Nope you’re the one with a daddy complex who needs a father figure so badly you close your eyes to everything that challenges it

And you assume wrong again, a creator doesn't have to be a person, but thats what you get for assuming.

And that piece of nonsense proves what? Do you think face slaps are part of evolution?

If they were, it would apparently take more than a billion of them to get the point across to you.

Originally posted by charles1952
Allow me to ramble for a bit, this may be confused.

I don't think I've ever cared about the evolution debate. I accept the belief that God created humans. How? I don't know, and His method doesn't bother me very much.

While I love science, and reason and measurements, etc., just looking at it's history tells me not to put too much faith in it. It attacks your opponent's belief one day, and attacks yours the next.

I may not be a thoughtful, prepared, Christian, but the basis of my belief lies elsewhere, and I don't really care which position is ahead at the moment.

If your belief is not challenged, then you don't care if it's wrong. We challenge beliefs for understanding, that's how it works.

Lets take the stove example;

Touch it while it's cool, okay -- safe.
Touch it while it's hot, burn -- not safe.

You could just take the path that says "I'm just not gonna touch it" and assume it's cool, thus safe, even though the truth is, when it's hot it's unsafe.

Science and religion are just like that.

Science challenges the beliefs by finding things that can be touched, tasted, seen, heard, smelled, measured, tested, and verified.

Religion accepts a belief that cannot ever be touched, tasted, seen, heard, smelled, measured, tested, or verified, because they can't handle being wrong. It's called faith/hope. Even scientists have faith and hope in their ideas, and then they test them. Faith and Hope can otherwise be called "a hunch" and should be based on rational principals, not made up ones. Faith and Hope is the catalyst of exploration. We cannot demand it so, without verification, so we embark on a journey of exploration to verify the hunch, or faith, or hope, that the original idea/concept was correct.

Science, does attack your opponents belief one day, and yours the next. Science concedes when it's wrong, and learns from those experiences. Religion attacks ALL opponent beliefs (my religion is right, every other one shall burn for all eternity), never admits it could be wrong, and refuses to learn from those experiences.


Science is to Rationale, Evidence, and Reason, as Religion is to, Faith, Hope, and Illogical Fallacies.


The thing that bothers me, is -- you already know this, since you explained it the same as me.

You say, in other words;

"I accept God, how? I have no clue. I like science, but, they always learn more and especially from their mistakes constantly by challenging and verifying the validity of their studies, but I hate being wrong -- So I'm going to stick with God."

How does the above make any sense, really? I mean, to knowingly choose the former? This is the very definition of ignorance, no?

Naive is lack of knowledge because of a lack of experience.

Ignorance is shunning the knowledge willfully when you know better.

I'm not insulting you, just pointing out what it is that you actually said and surveying the statement based on it's own merits. I mean you no insult, personally.



The very bottom line is, you can prove God Exists with your eyes. We exist, we are here, we have flesh, bone, and blood. However, the debate lies with "what exactly" God is.

The scientific community views God as the catalyst to genesis. The religionites view God as an omnipotent sentient being that created us and demands a certain way of life whilst dictating your future in a predefined story arc of fate, in which, he so readily intervenes by answering prayers and performing miracles from behind the curtain. He also apparently says, our greatest gift by him was freewill, yet he attempts to blackmail all those that use it -- with the threat of being sent to a torture prison for eternity if you stray from his vision. A proper illusion of choice, so evidently, he's a sadistic practical joker too.

The bottom line is, something created the creator ad infinitum. The same goes for "God." If "God" could just exist for all of eternity and never have been created, and just always was -- then surely the universe itself could too. The universe is an unknown and unexplainable thing, just as is the imaginary deity that is God. There is one big difference though -- the universe doesn't hide from us, it taunts us to explore it -- it's real, it's there, definitively. The notion of a deity, is one of ignorance and convenience... "I can't explain it, therefor -- God." This is akin to a kindergarten argument.

It is in this way, and this way only (The catalyst to genesis), that God exists. God IS existence, not a deity -- and it is not a being, and it certainly doesn't answer your prayers and perform miracles on the operating table. Man does that, more specifically, your very intelligent and devoted surgeon does that.

I think it's time to give credit where it's do. Just saying.

Tooth, you're making a fool out of yourself because your posts make it abundantly clear you don't even understand the theory. Go to Youtube and watch a series called "Why people laugh at creationists", it goes over all those RIDICULOUS claims you make and debunks them.

For crying out loud, your understanding of evolution is that a life form gives birth to an entirely different species...that's a very CHILDISH and UNEDUCATED understanding of the theory. No wonder you don't believe in the theory if that's what you think it claims

Of course all this is probably too late because your NONSENSE has been debunked before, you simply chose to ignore it in order to preserve your bat# crazy fantasyland religion. Kinda sad if you ask me and definitely going against ATS's "deny ignorance" mantra. You are a prime example of someone being so ignorant he can't even grasp reality anymore.

reply to post by MrXYZ
He does not even believe his own posts. He denies the wiki he supplied on squirrels actually prove him wrong. When that is pointed out he writes

I would never enter a debate about something that wiki and other sources say is so.

and follows it claiming the wiki is correct

I don’t think tooths argument is the only unstable thing in his life

reply to post by MrXYZ

Tooth, you're making a fool out of yourself because your posts make it abundantly clear you don't even understand the theory. Go to Youtube and watch a series called "Why people laugh at creationists", it goes over all those RIDICULOUS claims you make and debunks them.

I have already told you, that you can't debunk claims that can't be recreated.

For crying out loud, your understanding of evolution is that a life form gives birth to an entirely different species...that's a very CHILDISH and UNEDUCATED understanding of the theory. No wonder you don't believe in the theory if that's what you think it claims

What did I miss here, that it happens over several generations?

Of course all this is probably too late because your NONSENSE has been debunked before, you simply chose to ignore it in order to preserve your bat# crazy fantasyland religion. Kinda sad if you ask me and definitely going against ATS's "deny ignorance" mantra. You are a prime example of someone being so ignorant he can't even grasp reality anymore.

So now your trying to tell me that you have single handedly debunked the bible, and the idea of intervention. Right, now I'm laughing.

reply to post by colin42


No colin, what I was saying is that I would never choose to argue against the views found in a wiki like you seem to always be doing.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So now your trying to tell me that you have single handedly debunked the bible, and the idea of intervention. Right, now I'm laughing.

I can't debunk intervention...but there is ZERO objective (!!) evidence for it. As far as the bible, yeah...it's DEMONSTRABLY wrong in HUNDREDS of cases, including that silly global flood. And of course it's wrong, it's based on "knowledge" and beliefs of goat herders that lived 2k years ago

reply to post by MrXYZ

I can't debunk intervention...but there is ZERO objective (!!) evidence for it. As far as the bible, yeah...it's DEMONSTRABLY wrong in HUNDREDS of cases, including that silly global flood. And of course it's wrong, it's based on "knowledge" and beliefs of goat herders that lived 2k years ago

Then you should contact the pope and let him know how you single handedly debunked historical documents

reply to post by itsthetooth

When are you going to learn that all processes have a purpose behind them. In this case the most obvious is to make new species, which would just confirm that evolution is a creator.

When are you going to learn anything? Just because you believe everything has a purpose it does not make it a fact, you need proof for that and you have none.

You repeat the same ridiculously wrong garbage showing this subject is either well beyond your capability to understand or that you have a real problem dealing with reality.

Evolution has nothing to do with some species being the hunter while others are the hunted, it was just another section of life that evolutionists wanted to take credit for.

Like I said this is way beyond you. Have you ever thought about taking up needle work?

If I'm wrong then please prove what connection this has to do with evolution aside from the fact that they claim it to.

That has been done many times already but the question you are running away from for the third time of asking is 'but none of that explains how crazed aliens abducting us and any resulting extinctions means evolution is an invalid description of how life evolves. Do that as you were asked.'

The only reason I'm shouting in the dark is because your are to afraid to deal with the truth.

Again you have a real problem facing reality don’t you but be my guest and keep making a fool of yourself talking about animals eating dirt and rocks.

Exactly, evolution doesn't describe anything

Squirming again are you? You cannot avoid you agreed with me when I wrote why would the theory of evolution describe your ignorance about calcium and again

EVOLUTION IS A WORD THAT DESCRIBES A PROCESS OF HOW LIFE EVOLVED. So the one thing it does do is describe and is the one thing you claim it does not do. This subject is well beyond you boy.

The wiki on the squirrel diet clearly explains a phase two diet when the squirrel goes hungry and is not able to locate phase one food.

Not only is that hogwash but you wrote:

I would never enter a debate about something that wiki and other sources say is so.

So which one is the lie? You have been caught doing this many times so we both know the dance that follows.

So what is it?

1. You don’t debate something that wiki and other sources say is so OR
2. You depend on wiki information even though you appear unable to understand what it says

You just cannot grasp the concept can you? How long did it take you to understand the wheel?

And your having problems with definitions again...

Oh look the link to Google front page again. Still not matter as I have more than established how far you are prepared to go to cover your lies.

1. A person or thing that brings something into existence

Evolution is a word that describes a process. Evolution is not a person and does not bring anything into existence. The definition fails when applied to evolution

2. Used as a name for God

Evolution is a word that describes a process it is not a god. The definition fails when applied to evolution .

So again you show you cannot even grasp the information you pretend to link to and you claim I have problems with definitions

The wiki on squirrel clearly ................... you do not debate wiki

Until you respond to my question above regarding your statement anything you quote from wiki cannot be debated

If I'm wrong where is your proof?

Go to your profile. Review all your threads and posts. The proof is clear for all to see

Diversity

2. Variety or multiformity: "Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection" (Scientific American).

I find it unbelievable you find so much trouble linking to definitions and the ones you claim you have linked to do not show anything that does not fit your silly fantasy

And you assume wrong once again. A creator doesn't have to be a pers

No it seems according to you it is an alien

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I can't debunk intervention...but there is ZERO objective (!!) evidence for it. As far as the bible, yeah...it's DEMONSTRABLY wrong in HUNDREDS of cases, including that silly global flood. And of course it's wrong, it's based on "knowledge" and beliefs of goat herders that lived 2k years ago

Then you should contact the pope and let him know how you single handedly debunked historical documents

He knows the literal interpretation is complete and utter nonsense...which explains why he agrees with the theory of evolution

The bible isn't presenting historical facts, it's presenting what people back then BELIEVED to be true...based on their compared to today limited knowledge. It's blatantly obvious that the bible isn't factual as things like that silly global flood or people living inside whales shows. You'd have to think like someone from 2k years ago instead of an educated person from the 21st century...and that would be kinda sad.

Every time you post I have this picture in my mind:



And you don't believe in evolution because your understanding of it is this:



Why? Because you are IGNORANT enough to never actually bother doing some real research...and that's why you will never get the theory:



And you base it all on circular reasoning:



And wacko "explanations" like this one:



Educate yourself, stop being so god damn ignorant!!

reply to post by itsthetooth

And you assume wrong again, a creator doesn't have to be a person, but thats what you get for assuming.

No it appears according to you a creator is an alien. The only one that continually makes assumptions is you.

And that piece of nonsense proves what? Do you think face slaps are part of evolution?

If they were, it would apparently take more than a billion of them to get the point across to you.

Nope. All you need do is provide evidence, proof of the ridiculous claims you make. If you think violence or lies will work then I agree you will never get your point across because you plainly have no valid points to make?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

No colin, what I was saying is that I would never choose to argue against the views found in a wiki like you seem to always be doing.

Nope you wrote:

I would never enter a debate about something that wiki and other sources say is so.

But if you now say you accept everything without debate that is contained in a wiki article Evolution Discussion over then

reply to post by colin42

When are you going to learn anything? Just because you believe everything has a purpose it does not make it a fact, you need proof for that and you have none.

You repeat the same ridiculously wrong garbage showing this subject is either well beyond your capability to understand or that you have a real problem dealing with reality.

I would say the same thing to you, just because you believe that things happen in evolution for no apparen't and random reason doesn't mean they do, Where is YOUR proof?

Like I said this is way beyond you. Have you ever thought about taking up needle work?

You have failed to prove that there is any relation between domination and speciation.

That has been done many times already but the question you are running away from for the third time of asking is 'but none of that explains how crazed aliens abducting us and any resulting extinctions means evolution is an invalid description of how life evolves. Do that as you were asked.'

Well sure it does, there is no way we could share a common ancestor if we weren't here.

Again you have a real problem facing reality don’t you but be my guest and keep making a fool of yourself talking about animals eating dirt and rocks.

I have a problem facing reality? Your the one running and hiding from historical documents that clearly tell us our life didn't being here.

Squirming again are you? You cannot avoid you agreed with me when I wrote why would the theory of evolution describe your ignorance about calcium and again

EVOLUTION IS A WORD THAT DESCRIBES A PROCESS OF HOW LIFE EVOLVED. So the one thing it does do is describe and is the one thing you claim it does not do. This subject is well beyond you boy.

Yes we all know that evolution makes a lot of claims, but I'm not interested in claims, I'm interested in proof and you seem to be short on this.

Not only is that hogwash but you wrote:


I would never enter a debate about something that wiki and other sources say is so.

So which one is the lie? You have been caught doing this many times so we both know the dance that follows.

So what is it?

1. You don’t debate something that wiki and other sources say is so OR
2. You depend on wiki information even though you appear unable to understand what it says

What I was trying to say was if I were you I wouldn't enter into a debate that obviously proves me wrong because you keep doing it.

Oh look the link to Google front page again. Still not matter as I have more than established how far you are prepared to go to cover your lies.

Its probably from you using an outdated browser, how come your the ONLY one ever complaining about my links not woking?

Evolution is a word that describes a process. Evolution is not a person and does not bring anything into existence. The definition fails when applied to evolution

So let me get this straight, you don't know for sure what causes the changes found in evolution, your not sure what the mechanism is that makes the changes, your also not sure if there is anything behind the event of these changes, your just sure that its not a person. Right

Evolution is a word that describes a process it is not a god. The definition fails when applied to evolution .

So again you show you cannot even grasp the information you pretend to link to and you claim I have problems with definitions

You don't know that its not a god, you have no proof of that, you just making assumptions. How are you going to say you know its not a god when you can't even identify whats making the changes or why? You don't know dick.

Until you respond to my question above regarding your statement anything you quote from wiki cannot be debated

Just as I expected, you to continue to run from definitions.

Go to your profile. Review all your threads and posts. The proof is clear for all to see

Thats right, because it takes several posts to cover all the material that proves what has happened to us.

I find it unbelievable you find so much trouble linking to definitions and the ones you claim you have linked to do not show anything that does not fit your silly fantasy

No its just that I don't look as long and hard as you do to find things to fit your silly fantasy.

No it seems according to you it is an alien

The only claim I have made is that it's obviously intelligent, thats all, but there you go again assuming.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No its just that I don't look as long and hard as you do to find things to fit your silly fantasy.

Indeed...you circumvent that annoying problem of having to look for proof and evidence by simply MAKING UP WORDS

reply to post by itsthetooth

I would say the same thing to you, just because you believe that things happen in evolution for no apparen't and random reason doesn't mean they do, Where is YOUR proof?

Of course you would because you base everything on what you believe and nothing on what has proof to back it up.

You have been told that the process of evolution is NOT random but you ignore that because it does not fit your silly fantasy.

Evolution is small changes selected for over time by the environment that is hardly random. You refuse to look at any proof that has been spoon fed you over many pages in many threads so I refer you back to those and advise you to read them this time.

You have failed to prove that there is any relation between domination and speciation.

Have I? Congratulations to me then as domination has diddley squat to do with evolution.

Well sure it does, there is no way we could share a common ancestor if we weren't here.

Oh dear it’s a 4th time then:

the question you are running away from for the third time of asking (now 4th) is 'but none of that explains how crazed aliens abducting us and any resulting extinctions means evolution is an invalid description of how life evolves. Do that as you were asked.'

I have a problem facing reality? Your the one running and hiding from historical documents that clearly tell us our life didn't being here.

Please supply that historical documentation.

Yes we all know that evolution makes a lot of claims, but I'm not interested in claims, I'm interested in proof and you seem to be short on this.

Evolution provides a lot of proof as well, something you are also not interested in. But if you truly are not interested in unfounded claims please provide the proof for:
1. Alien creators
2. Target food
3. Global flood
4. People living inside whales
5. Intended food
6. This is not our planet

All claims you have made and not provided one crumb of evidence to back them up.

What I was trying to say was if I were you I wouldn't enter into a debate that obviously proves me wrong because you keep doing it.

Man are you funny. Why would I not enter into a debate that obviously proves you wrong?

Its probably from you using an outdated browser, how come your the ONLY one ever complaining about my links not woking?

I see you did not attempt to reply to what I wrote about your unsubstantiated so called link. Go back and try again:

So let me get this straight, you don't know for sure what causes the changes found in evolution, your not sure what the mechanism is that makes the changes, your also not sure if there is anything behind the event of these changes, your just sure that its not a person.

Unlike you science does not say anything is certain which is why it is always open to challenge and continually tested so your statement above is correct. Science does tell us that the overwhelming evidence supports the theory of evolution and yes I am absolutely positive a person did not do it.

You don't know that its not a god, you have no proof of that, you just making assumptions.

No I am 100% sure evolution is a word that describes a process and not a god. That is your assumption.

How are you going to say you know its not a god when you can't even identify whats making the changes or why?

Because it is a word that describes a process. How are you doing getting to grips with the wheel?

You don't know dick.

Who is dick? Is he another creator? Do you mean Moby Dick, No one lived inside him either.

Just as I expected, you to continue to run from definitions.

You just replied with utter nonsense where I explained your definition failed when applied to evolution. Did you miss that?

Thats right, because it takes several posts to cover all the material that proves what has happened to us.

No really, go back and review your posts. You will find you are wrong in every one of them and also note you have never supplied a crumb of proof

No its just that I don't look as long and hard as you do to find things to fit your silly fantasy.

No you cherry pick what suits you and that is why you always supply broken links to the offsite info you doctor

The only claim I have made is that it's obviously intelligent, thats all, but there you go again assuming.

Nope. You continually claim we were brought here by aliens and offer no evidence in support. That means you are the one making assumptions. All I have asked for is evidence which you obviously do not have.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Indeed...you circumvent that annoying problem of having to look for proof and evidence by simply MAKING UP WORDS

Scientific observations aren't made up, unlike the theory of evolution.

reply to post by colin42

Of course you would because you base everything on what you believe and nothing on what has proof to back it up.

You have been told that the process of evolution is NOT random but you ignore that because it does not fit your silly fantasy.

Evolution is small changes selected for over time by the environment that is hardly random. You refuse to look at any proof that has been spoon fed you over many pages in many threads so I refer you back to those and advise you to read them this time.

Well it is one of many things that I have been told about evolution. Of course its obvious to see that not everyone has the same beliefs about evolution and this has caused me some confusion. So you have your own beliefs, it doesn't matter, there is still no proof and your baseing your belief on assumptions.
Has the process of evolution been recreated in a labratory? No it hasn't. Has the mechanism been identified that causes the processes? No it hasn't. There is speculation about what those might be, but you can't base a theory entirely on that, but you have.

Have I? Congratulations to me then as domination has diddley squat to do with evolution.

So you agree that natural selection is bunk, good.

Oh dear it’s a 4th time then:

the question you are running away from for the third time of asking (now 4th) is 'but none of that explains how crazed aliens abducting us and any resulting extinctions means evolution is an invalid description of how life evolves. Do that as you were asked.'

I already gave you the answer, let me spell it out for you. If aliens dumped humans off here on earth 7000 years ago, then your made up fantasy about us having a common ancestor here on earth is obviously false, along with your fantasy of all species evolving here on earth.

Please supply that historical documentation.

The bible tells us that life was planted here.

Evolution provides a lot of proof as well, something you are also not interested in. But if you truly are not interested in unfounded claims please provide the proof for:
1. Alien creators
2. Target food
3. Global flood
4. People living inside whales
5. Intended food
6. This is not our planet

I never made any claims that there are alien creators, so I have no idea why you would ask. There could be I guess but there is no proof of that.
Target food you have already been provided with a plethora of information about including an entire thread about it. I'm sorry but I'm not going to continue to play the colin repeat game.
Global floods, I think there are many, I live next to one but the best by far is the grand cannyon.
People living inside whales has already been explained to you that supernatural elements could have been involved to make this possible, again I'm not going to play the colin repeat game with you. Intended food, or target food is an observed phenomena based on the diet choices and how they are made through all living species on this planet.
This not being our planet is confirmed through the bible, Target food, our living habbits and structure, our surrounding elements and what we dont have in common with any of them.

All claims you have made and not provided one crumb of evidence to back them up

I have provided threads of information, again I'm not going to play the colin repeat game.

Man are you funny. Why would I not enter into a debate that obviously proves you wrong?

Everytime I confront you with a fact finding question, rather than you answering it, you either side step the question by making some vague comment about me, or jump over the question by asking me to first answer another question. The fact is your not very good at answering questions, but I expected this from someone that believes in evolution.

I see you did not attempt to reply to what I wrote about your unsubstantiated so called link. Go back and try again:

I was directly answering your question, I'll say it again, your probably using the wrong browser.

Unlike you science does not say anything is certain which is why it is always open to challenge and continually tested so your statement above is correct. Science does tell us that the overwhelming evidence supports the theory of evolution and yes I am absolutely positive a person did not do it.

Of course, when your dealing with evolution.

No I am 100% sure evolution is a word that describes a process and not a god. That is your assumption.

Then you are a very poor scientist. You have nothing about the mechanism that causes evolution and nothing about the purpose, behind it, yet you sure to make the assumption that its not driven by a creator. It's one thing to just conn

reply to post by colin42

No I am 100% sure evolution is a word that describes a process and not a god. That is your assumption.

Then you are a very poor scientist. You have nothing about the mechanism that causes evolution and nothing about the purpose, behind it, yet you sure to make the assumption that its not driven by a creator. It's one thing to just connect the dots, but how are you doing so with no dots to connect?

Because it is a word that describes a process. How are you doing getting to grips with the wheel?

I understand you personally view it as just a process, but I want to know what proof you have that tells you it's not backed by some sort of intelligence, what is your proof, how do you know when you don't even know the mechanism or anything about it?

You just replied with utter nonsense where I explained your definition failed when applied to evolution. Did you miss that?

I understand you have claims that evolution is just a process. It doesn't matter if evolution has been witnessed for eons of years, I want to know what proof you have that shows there is no creator behind it. Because I have news for you, anything one, or anything that creates over a billion speices, is a creator by the definition.

No really, go back and review your posts. You will find you are wrong in every one of them and also note you have never supplied a crumb of proof

I doubt very seriously that I'm wrong, and you have failed to produce anything that proves me wrong. You can't even produce any evidence that proves your claims of animals randomly choosing food, yet this is supposed to be happening all around us everyday. You seem to have claims that only YOU are aware of and never produce anything to back them up. Meanwhile mine are backed up by the plethora of diets listed about every species on the earth, medical issues abound in man, diet issues with all species, Erich von Daniken, Lloyd Pye. I guess we all must be wrong and your right.

No you cherry pick what suits you and that is why you always supply broken links to the offsite info you doctor

I'm not sure what exactly your talking about, I'm assuming the bible. The fact is there isn't anything in the bible that makes reverse claims to anything I have presented. I do know as an example that you refuse to accept the definition of the word "natural" you seem to believe that as long as you don't accept it or acknowledge, that you don't have to follow it or believe in it. You live in your own world and think that we all live in the wild and that there is no difference between those that live in the city, or those that live out in the wild. You also have a problem accepting the term in the wild, and while I have issued many link with proof on it, you just choose to ignore the facts. You can continue to ignore as long as you want, but your just making yourself look like a fool.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

natural

Nope. You continually claim we were brought here by aliens and offer no evidence in support. That means you are the one making assumptions. All I have asked for is evidence which you obviously do not have.

I think your mistaking your laziness for something not being truth. Just because you choose to not accept the bible as proof, doesn't mean its not a historical document. Just because you choose not to accept whats written in the book doesn't mean it never happened. Or have you single handedly disproven the bible?

You would be wise to grow a brain and learn the wealth of information that is written in the bible. Just because things can't be recreated doesn't mean they didn't happen. I can't create an atomic bomb but I'm sure its happened. You would also be wiser to start coming up with some proof as to these events never happening rather than just claiming that there is no proof they did happen. There were to many people involved in the making of the bible for it to be false. One thing I learned from a smart detective is that people don't lie, the person lies, now if you can wrap your pea brain around that, you will see that your barking up the wrong tree.