Darwinism; What a Fake

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Snip*

A connection, if you may. In one hand you have the knowledge/belief that there is a creator, and in the other you have someone that has the knowledge/belief that it was chance.

Taking the creator idea is the most logical because you can't create something out of nothing, there is deterioration all around, and it would be hard to deny that such a thing would be a work of art.

*Snip*

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

hhhmmm, your IQ is equal to your ignorance, very stunning, I would have to say.

A connection, if you may. In one hand you have the knowledge/belief that there is a creator, and in the other you have someone that has the knowledge/belief that it was chance.

Taking the creator idea is the most logical because you can't create something out of nothing, there is deterioration all around, and it would be hard to deny that such a thing would be a work of art.

Do you have an appreciation for art, kid?

I see that rudeness appears to be your default setting. How sad. I also see that you're a scientific illiterate. How equally sad. Oh and yes, I do like art.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

kid, get a life.

One Iam 39 years of age so don't patronise me pal.
Two why not address the video I have shown you?
In fact you never do address any of the evidence people show you....that makes you ignorant...kid.

reply to post by boymonkey74


It also makes him typical of closed minded propaganda trolls with nothing more than a gish gallop to offer.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Then you don't know.

Art is a form in all things, life is one of it's major shows.

When the DNA structure is compared to a music sheet, it plays something that is comparable to one of the best Classical artists such as Bach or Beethoven.

If cancer's DNA is taken and analyzed, it'll play Chopin's Funeral March.

How can you say you like art when you don't appreciate that art around you?

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Care to explain why our DNA is 8% virus DNA?

www.sciencedaily.com...

Instead of babbling on about musical DNA...which means feck all.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Neither did you.

Age of an adult, in orthodox terms, has the limit of 18.

Age of an adult, in unorthodox terms, is when the person knows right from wrong, choose the things of the heart, and walks the Walk.

Hate.

Some people religion but not mine. Cloud one's mind to truth, and one being loves that cloud.

If evolution is so grand in your perspective and theory, then there must be traces of the past. In other words , Orthodox science says that the T-Rex has become the Chicken, if so, then it should be traceable via fossils.

In other words, the Transition, in fossil form.

Show me that such a thing has been found, and I'll consider what you say is true.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


en.wikipedia.org...

Not hard...why don't you watch the documentary I gave you the link too, explains it all there.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Comparision, they work in the wrong direction.

In order for a virus to invade, it needs code. Specifically, living code. 8% isn't a large about, but if what your scientist say is true, then it's all it needs to pass the inspection of the invasion of a cell.

Split, copy, and destroy. Basic programming of all self-destructive organisms that wish nothing but destruction.

reply to post by boymonkey74


An amphibious creature, not a transition creature.

He has found a creature, yes, Tiktaalik, is what he called it. However, it's still another variation of the code of DNA.

Impossible for DNA to be added unless brand new code is present. Mutation is a subtraction of DNA, not an addition.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


I give up I really did you even watch the video? it is a transitional fossil from fish to land animal.
Iam out no point speaking to a child who can't see the wood through the trees.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Transition, in your and those of the orthodox nature's perspective, is a fool's march to reinforce an idea that has little to no hold. Never was a transition, else it would be easy for those who work as hard as Professor Neil Shubin, since we live in a mass tomb.

When one lives in the past, they lose the sight of the future.

When one sees the true past, knows the path of the future.

The only things that can live preserved for, "millions of years" is that of a non-metal nature.

In other words, the things of only 8,000 years are the only closest things we have, when that creature, could of died 12,000 years ago.

Determining the age of one thing, no matter what kind of technique is used, can only go back ~8,000 years. You can have professionals say that a rock formation was formed in a million years, when the person that was there say it was being made 2 weeks ago.

I'm not asking for anything, I'm just saying, "Opportunity is here."

Every animal is a transition from what came before to what came (or will come) after.

The stupid creationist insistence on ignoring this basic fact just makes them look even dumber.

I don't think you can say Darwinism or evolution is fake. It's a theory that we work off of. What is your competing theory? Creationism? If so, then what religion? What is the Creation story? Darwin was really the first person to put all that in a coherent theory and that was a good thing. There is provable evolution, even if your just talking mutations and micro evolution, so to speak. There is survival of the fittest and on and on. Sure there are holes, but again what is the alternative. Biblical Creation? What if you don't believe in the divination of Jesus? Hmmmm. There are a lot of holes in that guys story.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


The sad thing is OPs heading is completely wrong.

Darwin wasn't faking at all when he conjured up, this half baked,
convoluted, cognitive concatenation, of contrived and conjoined,
coincidences. He continuously conspired to construct a
conclusion to completely contradict any creation connection
and all correlations constituting a Creator. By consulting and
concerning comrade and companion, conspired to concieve
and communcate a confirmation of confliction. Yet completely
conceded any conclusion to the collaboration..

But he was serious and as they say if you look hard enough for
something ? You can find anything.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Then you don't know.

Art is a form in all things, life is one of it's major shows.

When the DNA structure is compared to a music sheet, it plays something that is comparable to one of the best Classical artists such as Bach or Beethoven.

If cancer's DNA is taken and analyzed, it'll play Chopin's Funeral March.

How can you say you like art when you don't appreciate that art around you?

I see. So can I ask where you got this... remarkable assertion?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


This entire thread is an argument for de-evolution. Who knew DEVO was right?

CJ

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Susumo Ono

reply to post by ColoradoJens


A different path.

One that is unorthodox in nature, but focuses on life's perspective itself, without the killing and such.