Google celebrates 41st Anniversary of an Ape called "Lucy."

[Coloradomtnman]

Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?

No one has proven evolution is a lie, far from it.

No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is a faith based fairy tale.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

 

[Picaro]

Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?

No one has proven evolution is a lie, far from it.

No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is a faith based fairy tale.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

But it is a theory, a very solid theory, and there are huge amounts of evidence that support it. All you need to do is a little research on-line.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?

No one has proven evolution is a lie, far from it.

No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is a faith based fairy tale.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.

Evolution is a fact. It is a scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory that attempts to describe and explain evolution. There are other theories that also attempt this through genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

The theories of evolution are supported by empirical evidence from the fields of geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, and physics. ERV DNA code found in primate DNA and human DNA is incontrovertible.

Don't be know what ERVs are? Retrovirus DNA randomly inserted in an early ancestor of chimpanzees and humans shows up identically in humans and chimpanzees in the identical spot in the the identical strand of DNA. Creation advocates attempt to explain this away as coincidence or a preclusion for retroviruses to insert DNA only in specific places or specific DNA. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim and there is observable, repeatable evidence that retroviruses insert their DNA randomly with no proclivity for specific sites.

How would you explain that? Is that just "speculation"?

 

[PK1]

Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?

No one has proven evolution is a lie, far from it.

No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is a faith based fairy tale.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.

Evolution is a fact. It is a scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory that attempts to describe and explain evolution. There are other theories that also attempt this through genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

The theories of evolution are supported by empirical evidence from the fields of geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, and physics. ERV DNA code found in primate DNA and human DNA is incontrovertible.

Don't be know what ERVs are? Retrovirus DNA randomly inserted in an early ancestor of chimpanzees and humans shows up identically in humans and chimpanzees in the identical spot in the the identical strand of DNA. Creation advocates attempt to explain this away as coincidence or a preclusion for retroviruses to insert DNA only in specific places or specific DNA. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim and there is observable, repeatable evidence that retroviruses insert their DNA randomly with no proclivity for specific sites.

How would you explain that? Is that just "speculation"?

---
The religious "explanation" is "God did it".
No need for curiosity, or explaining why God created Chimps and other hominids; it's simply "God's will".

.

 

[asaratis]

That OP-Ed was entirely devoid of scientific fact, understanding, or knowledge.

Good work!

It is also accompanied by a photo resembling a character costume from Planet of the Apes. It is certainly not a photograph of Lucy or her remains.

 

[Picaro]

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

But it is a theory, a very solid theory, and there are huge amounts of evidence that support it. All you need to do is a little research on-line.

Barney the Dinosaur's Facebook page?

What there is are huge amounts of evidence lacking in support of the evolution speculation. It's a genre of writing, and there are shelves of similar writings in most bookstores and libraries under the heading of 'Science Fiction', some of which have more science behind their speculations than evolution does.

 

[Picaro]

Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?

No one has proven evolution is a lie, far from it.

No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is a faith based fairy tale.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.

Evolution is a fact. It is a scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory that attempts to describe and explain evolution. There are other theories that also attempt this through genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

The theories of evolution are supported by empirical evidence from the fields of geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, and physics. ERV DNA code found in primate DNA and human DNA is incontrovertible.

Don't be know what ERVs are? Retrovirus DNA randomly inserted in an early ancestor of chimpanzees and humans shows up identically in humans and chimpanzees in the identical spot in the the identical strand of DNA. Creation advocates attempt to explain this away as coincidence or a preclusion for retroviruses to insert DNA only in specific places or specific DNA. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim and there is observable, repeatable evidence that retroviruses insert their DNA randomly with no proclivity for specific sites.

How would you explain that? Is that just "speculation"?

I'm not a creationist; go ask one of them. As for the rest of your assorted handwaves, they don't constitute evidence either, they are just speculation as well, and in no way constitute empirical evidence.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No one has proven evolution is a lie, far from it.

No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is a faith based fairy tale.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.

Evolution is a fact. It is a scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory that attempts to describe and explain evolution. There are other theories that also attempt this through genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

The theories of evolution are supported by empirical evidence from the fields of geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, and physics. ERV DNA code found in primate DNA and human DNA is incontrovertible.

Don't be know what ERVs are? Retrovirus DNA randomly inserted in an early ancestor of chimpanzees and humans shows up identically in humans and chimpanzees in the identical spot in the the identical strand of DNA. Creation advocates attempt to explain this away as coincidence or a preclusion for retroviruses to insert DNA only in specific places or specific DNA. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim and there is observable, repeatable evidence that retroviruses insert their DNA randomly with no proclivity for specific sites.

How would you explain that? Is that just "speculation"?

I'm not a creationist; go ask one of them. As for the rest of your assorted handwaves, they don't constitute evidence either, they are just speculation as well, and in no way constitute empirical evidence.

Would you explain for me why you think DNA evidence for common descent is just speculation? I ask because I don't understand at all how you could perceive it that way. Your point of view must just be totally different from mine and I want to understand better, especially because you say you aren't a creationist.

 

[Picaro]

Would you explain for me why you think DNA evidence for common descent is just speculation? I ask because I don't understand at all how you could perceive it that way. Your point of view must just be totally different from mine and I want to understand better, especially because you say you aren't a creationist.

What you want is a discussion on metaphysics, i.e. the attempt at attributing teleological interpretations to an ateological 'theory' for which there is no significant evidence for; there is no other premise than "We Hate the Xians!!!", and using some little factoid or other to represent the whole argument, rather than presenting any real empirical chain of evidence. Conspiracy theories, and political ideologies as well, use the same tactic.

 

[asaratis]

No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is a faith based fairy tale.

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.

Evolution is a fact. It is a scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory that attempts to describe and explain evolution. There are other theories that also attempt this through genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

The theories of evolution are supported by empirical evidence from the fields of geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, and physics. ERV DNA code found in primate DNA and human DNA is incontrovertible.

Don't be know what ERVs are? Retrovirus DNA randomly inserted in an early ancestor of chimpanzees and humans shows up identically in humans and chimpanzees in the identical spot in the the identical strand of DNA. Creation advocates attempt to explain this away as coincidence or a preclusion for retroviruses to insert DNA only in specific places or specific DNA. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim and there is observable, repeatable evidence that retroviruses insert their DNA randomly with no proclivity for specific sites.

How would you explain that? Is that just "speculation"?

I'm not a creationist; go ask one of them. As for the rest of your assorted handwaves, they don't constitute evidence either, they are just speculation as well, and in no way constitute empirical evidence.

Would you explain for me why you think DNA evidence for common descent is just speculation? I ask because I don't understand at all how you could perceive it that way. Your point of view must just be totally different from mine and I want to understand better, especially because you say you aren't a creationist.

My theory is you can have a created world that evolved into all that exists to date. The Rat Fish has been on earth, unchanged...for 150,000,000 years. Just think how long it took nature, nature that was created by God to come up with that perfect predator?

Human nature came up with the 7 day Creation story...because mankind, when it finally came around...had no conception of millions of years...and it had to come up with a story to tell the kids who wondered where all this came from. Accountants came along after man learned to count. That is when science began. Religion is a child of narcissism. To believe...religiously...that the world (and all the fishes on it) was created in 7 days, one has to suspend belief in the science of counting years, especially the science of counting them backwards through archaeological evidence and scientific enumeration of findings

To posit that all currently existing species of life came into being in their present forms in an instant (or a single day) is incredible in light of the millions of species, both animal and vegetation and their interdependence upon each other and the intricate, evolved configurations. To posit that dinosaurs and mankind existed simultaneously is equally incredible.

God created all that exists way back at the Big Bang. Evolution started when hydrogen atoms began to cluster and evolve into the heavier elements....one at a time. (BTW, the Earth owes it habitability to Fe and the fact the it spins at one revolution per day on a tilted axis as it orbits the sun once per year as the moon sloshes the oceans back and forth).

Creation is not a myth. Neither is Evolution.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No scientific theory has ever been proven. That isn't how science works. Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution. So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about. And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.

Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.

Evolution is a fact. It is a scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory that attempts to describe and explain evolution. There are other theories that also attempt this through genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

The theories of evolution are supported by empirical evidence from the fields of geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, and physics. ERV DNA code found in primate DNA and human DNA is incontrovertible.

Don't be know what ERVs are? Retrovirus DNA randomly inserted in an early ancestor of chimpanzees and humans shows up identically in humans and chimpanzees in the identical spot in the the identical strand of DNA. Creation advocates attempt to explain this away as coincidence or a preclusion for retroviruses to insert DNA only in specific places or specific DNA. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim and there is observable, repeatable evidence that retroviruses insert their DNA randomly with no proclivity for specific sites.

How would you explain that? Is that just "speculation"?

I'm not a creationist; go ask one of them. As for the rest of your assorted handwaves, they don't constitute evidence either, they are just speculation as well, and in no way constitute empirical evidence.

Would you explain for me why you think DNA evidence for common descent is just speculation? I ask because I don't understand at all how you could perceive it that way. Your point of view must just be totally different from mine and I want to understand better, especially because you say you aren't a creationist.

My theory is you can have a created world that evolved into all that exists to date. The Rat Fish has been on earth, unchanged...for 150,000,000 years. Just think how long it took nature, nature that was created by God to come up with that perfect predator?

Human nature came up with the 7 day Creation story...because mankind, when it finally came around...had no conception of millions of years...and it had to come up with a story to tell the kids who wondered where all this came from. Accountants came along after man learned to count. That is when science began. Religion is a child of narcissism. To believe...religiously...that the world (and all the fishes on it) was created in 7 days, one has to suspend belief in the science of counting years, especially the science of counting them backwards through archaeological evidence and scientific enumeration of findings

To posit that all currently existing species of life came into being in their present forms in an instant (or a single day) is incredible in light of the millions of species, both animal and vegetation and their interdependence upon each other and the intricate, evolved configurations. To posit that dinosaurs and mankind existed simultaneously is equally incredible.

God created all that exists way back at the Big Bang. Evolution started when hydrogen atoms began to cluster and evolve into the heavier elements....one at a time. (BTW, the Earth owes it habitability to Fe and the fact the it spins at one revolution per day on a tilted axis as it orbits the sun once per year as the moon sloshes the oceans back and forth).

Creation is not a myth. Neither is Evolution.

I think that is far more likely than any of the creation myths that linger on still today.

I just watched on youtube a debate about evolution between Dr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Michael Shermer. Dr. Hovind's, who is a great speaker, arguments were either a critique of Darwinian evolution based on misunderstandings, misconstrued facts or assumptions, and evangelical fundamentalist biblical beliefs. He made no positive argument for his literal interpretation creation hypothesis. And that's the biggest problem with young earth creationism. There is no positive argument that can be made scientifically.

I don't believe your hypothesis, but I don't believe in the Big Bang or evolution either. Belief isn't necessary to understand that both theories are simply the current best explanations of the available information. There is no need to substitute belief for knowledge.