Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
Thank you moderators.
Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
LOL
Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
You don't even believe what you claimed.
There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.The God haters can piss in their faces all day, does not change the facts that evolution has been long ago disproven to be invalid.
Thank you moderators.
Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
LOL
Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
You don't even believe what you claimed.
From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
LOL
Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
You don't even believe what you claimed.
From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
You can't reason with someone like him. He honestly believes that you can randomly change lines of code in the Windows OS and make it run better. It's no different than believing that random mutations are responsible for increased complexity in living organisms. And just as stupid.There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.Damn, Weatherman, if I had know that you were a flat out looney, with all this creationist, anti-evolutionists stuff, I would never have allowed you to take up a minute of my time on any other thread. You need to put stuff like that in your sig, so that people will know that you completely divorced from reality, and should just put you on ignore right away.
LOL
Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
You don't even believe what you claimed.
From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. If you don't agree with that, just say so and we can move on. But if you agree, the fact no one can answer why it remains unchanged over 66 million years simply validates my point.There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
LOL
Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
You don't even believe what you claimed.
From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
You specifically claimed this:
Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. .There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.LOL
Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
You don't even believe what you claimed.
From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
You specifically claimed this:
Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
You can't reason with someone like him. He honestly believes that you can randomly change lines of code in the Windows OS and make it run better. It's no different than believing that random mutations are responsible for increased complexity in living organisms. And just as stupid.There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.I don't blame you for going on a personal attack rant about me. If I couldn't answer the scientific data that threatened with what I was brainwashed with I might have the same response.
LOL
Yet you haven't provided one whit of 'scientific' evidence in this thread.
You don't even believe what you claimed.
From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. .There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone who is claiming Tilapia and Coelacanth are at the pinnacle of evolution, we know your version of science.
From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
You specifically claimed this:
Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
When did I take that position?
Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
I have yet to see evidence presented.No amount of evidence or ground truth will ever change the mind of weatherman2020. What a joke of a user name man....Why not Jesuslovesyou2020?
The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. .There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.From someone lying about what I said- we know what your morals are.
Which is why of course you dodged this question:
Going back to the 66 million years that you accept as fact- where are the fossils of modern humans from 66 million years ago? Or from 6 million years ago?
If evolution doesn't exist- then humans must have existed 66 million years ago if they exist today.
Where is the evidence that they did?
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
You specifically claimed this:
Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
When did I take that position?
Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish. An identical fish.
Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. .There you go with your lies again. I never said I considered 66 million years as fact.
Why can't you tell us why a species is identical to one 66 million years ago?
You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
You specifically claimed this:
Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
When did I take that position?
Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish. An identical fish.
Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. .You were the one who made the 66 million year claim- so you were lying?
You specifically claimed this:
Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
Where are the fossils of modern humans that are 6 million years old?
When did I take that position?
Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish. An identical fish.
Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Why it's almost as if you know evolution of species is a lie.
Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. .
When did I take that position?
Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish. An identical fish.
Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Why it's almost as if you know evolution of species is a lie.
I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
And I missed pointing out that since C14 has such a short half life, it is only good for dating back 80,000 years.Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.It is your position that Coelacanth fossils are 66 million years old. .
When did I take that position?
Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish. An identical fish.
Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Why it's almost as if you know evolution of species is a lie.
I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.When did I take that position?
Here are direct quotes of what you claimed:
Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago.
Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?
You have stated that the Coelacanth has existed for 66 million years now twice.
Where are the modern human fossils that go back as far as the Coelacanth?
And why are you so terrified to answer that question?
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish. An identical fish.
Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Why it's almost as if you know evolution of species is a lie.
I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Sure you did..
Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS. Want to go back and post my entire quote now?Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?The OP is about evolution, not dating. Your lame attempts at having to avoid answering why species have not evolved over millions of years is obvious to all.
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish. An identical fish.
Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Why it's almost as if you know evolution of species is a lie.
I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Sure you did..
Yes I did.
So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie.
Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS. Want to go back and post my entire quote now?Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?Okay- once again- 66 million years ago.
Why are there no fossils of modern man from 66 million years ago?
Why are you making such lame attempts to avoid answering the question?
Why it's almost as if you know evolution of species is a lie.
I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Sure you did..
Yes I did.
So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie.
Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS. Want to go back and post my entire quote now?Gee, now how did I know you had no answer as to why species remain unchanged over millions of years?
Why it's almost as if you know evolution of species is a lie.
I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Sure you did..
Yes I did.
So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie.
I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie.
Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
Not my problem you want to avoid the issue of why there is no evidence of species evolving into other species by ignoring what I say.Cutting out what I posted, tsk tsk. Violation of TOS. Want to go back and post my entire quote now?I already answered your question yesterday- you lied about my answer and went on.
What you are doing is desperately dodging the question of why there is no evidence of modern man from 66 million years ago- even though you admit that the fish existed 66 million years ago.
Sure you did..
Yes I did.
So you have repeatedly stated in this thread this and equivalent statements:
The fact remains, a fish 66 million years ago is still just a fish
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie.
I didn't alter what you said- that is your quote.
Want to answer the question? Of course not- it gets in the way of your false narrative.
Since you have claimed that a fish existed 66 million years ago- where is the evidence that modern man existed 66 million years ago?
The premise of your entire laughable attempt to dispute evolution is based upon your claim that a fish has not changed in 66 million years ago.
If you don't believe that fish existed 66 million years ago- then this thread is a blatant lie.
Or maybe such a delicate Snowflake as yourself can report me and whine about how unfair the moderators are.
