Darwin's Tree Of Life Cut Down

[Hollie]

Yeah, it just papers from atheist scientists. There isn't any hard evidence as Judy was a chimp. She's not even a complete fossil and no one has found another since. Can't you admit that isn't enough to show an ape-human existed? If they're like other apes and monkeys, then they should be living someplace on Earth. I got more evidence of humans lived with dinosaurs which refutes evilution.

You get evidence of humans living with dinosaurs from creationer charlatans.

You're a willing accomplice to ignorance. What does that say about you?

 

[rightwinger]

I got more evidence of humans lived with dinosaurs which refutes evilution.

 

[Hollie]

View attachment 602428

Am I surprised that westerners invented a very Caucasian looking Jesus.

 

[rightwinger]

Am I surprised that westerners invented a very Caucasian looking Jesus.

Jesus was white and had blonde hair and blue eyes
He also spoke with an English accent

 

[james bond]

You get evidence of humans living with dinosaurs from creationer charlatans.

You're a willing accomplice to ignorance. What does that say about you?

They both lived during prehistoric times. We got myths of them together from all over the world. It shows it was true they lived during the same time. Next, I have human and dino footprints together and artwork from all over the world that shows them living together. They even have a history together. You have nothing to disprove any of this. Now, that's ignorance. You and ignorance walk hand-in-hand off into the sunset.

Lol, your side are the Flat Earthers.

Flat Earther claims that Nasa makes us believe in aliens so that we'll shoot Jesus if he returns ​

Flat Earther claims Nasa made us believe in aliens so we'd shoot Jesus if he returned

What if, and bear with us for a second, Nasa made us all believe in aliens so that we'd be inclined to shoot Jesus if he returned.Not convinced? Of course not – we’ve heard some bonkers conspiracies in our time, but we have to admit that this is a new one on us. The bizarre theory was discussed...

www.indy100.com

 

[james bond]

View attachment 602428

We got the majority and the evidence. Why not? Birds and dinosaurs existed together. Humans and monkeys existed together.

Flintstone facts? 41 percent of Americans say people and dinosaurs co-existed

Riding a Brontosaurus bareback might not be a fantasy. It could be history, depending on who you ask.

www.cnet.com

 

[james bond]

Lol you teach your children that men lived with dinosaurs?

Yep. Birds and dinos lived together as well as humans and monkeys.

All you have is hypotheses. It doesn't mean it's true or else the ape-human is alive somewhere.

 

[Hollie]

They both lived during prehistoric times. We got myths of them together from all over the world. It shows it was true they lived during the same time. Next, I have human and dino footprints together and artwork from all over the world that shows them living together. They even have a history together. You have nothing to disprove any of this. Now, that's ignorance. You and ignorance walk hand-in-hand off into the sunset.

Lol, your side are the Flat Earthers.

Flat Earther claims that Nasa makes us believe in aliens so that we'll shoot Jesus if he returns ​

Flat Earther claims Nasa made us believe in aliens so we'd shoot Jesus if he returned

What if, and bear with us for a second, Nasa made us all believe in aliens so that we'd be inclined to shoot Jesus if he returned.Not convinced? Of course not – we’ve heard some bonkers conspiracies in our time, but we have to admit that this is a new one on us. The bizarre theory was discussed...

www.indy100.com

Were prehistoric times (or would you prefer prehysteric), just 4,000 years ago?

You Flat Earthers are funny.

 

[surada]

Yep. Birds and dinos lived together as well as humans and monkeys.

All you have is hypotheses. It doesn't mean it's true or else the ape-human is alive somewhere.

You are off by 100 million years.

 

[james bond]

You are off by 100 million years.

This isn't just to you, surada.

I understand the atheists WRONG pov though. I went to HS and university and learned evolution, but realized it was just a hypothesis. It became called a THEORY (stronger assertion) due to those papers that the scientists wrote. The scientists got funding from the USG and got more recognition. We all accepted evolution as there were no other papers submitted. We believe usually what we are taught in school. Later, I learned (after becoming Christian in 2012) that there was another scientific POV, but this wasn't acceptable in mainstream science due to a supernatural being involved. Thus, it wasn't explained as science would not accept a global flood nor God creating the universe, Earth and everything in it. But eventually science started to back up what was said in the Bible. This was observable and testable. Furthermore, I discovered there were scientists who believed in God (even though they couldn't admit it) that there were science that backed up the Bible. It was a big breakthrough for me as what's the point of religion if it wasn't true? I mean evolution led to atheism and the atheists here just want to use science to support their religion. This is what we are arguing so long and hard about.

So what's the answer. For me, I've found the TRUTH and just have to look for more evidence and explain what I have to back up the Bible. For the atheists, I would suggest continuing their search using evolution and finding that there is evidence that backs it up, besides the papers and what they were taught in school. If one can think for themselves instead of beholden to their schooling, then they may be able to look at another pov and find what science states about it. I've looked for evidence of humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs and I told you already what I found.

Anyway, I'm more negatively inclined that you won't believe because of your atheism and need for support. Maybe one of your members already died and now is learning the truth.

 

[Hollie]

This isn't just to you, surada.

I understand the atheists WRONG pov though. I went to HS and university and learned evolution, but realized it was just a hypothesis. It became called a THEORY (stronger assertion) due to those papers that the scientists wrote. The scientists got funding from the USG and got more recognition. We all accepted evolution as there were no other papers submitted. We believe usually what we are taught in school. Later, I learned (after becoming Christian in 2012) that there was another scientific POV, but this wasn't acceptable in mainstream science due to a supernatural being involved. Thus, it wasn't explained as science would not accept a global flood nor God creating the universe, Earth and everything in it. But eventually science started to back up what was said in the Bible. This was observable and testable. Furthermore, I discovered there were scientists who believed in God (even though they couldn't admit it) that there were science that backed up the Bible. It was a big breakthrough for me as what's the point of religion if it wasn't true? I mean evolution led to atheism and the atheists here just want to use science to support their religion. This is what we are arguing so long and hard about.

So what's the answer. For me, I've found the TRUTH and just have to look for more evidence and explain what I have to back up the Bible. For the atheists, I would suggest continuing their search using evolution and finding that there is evidence that backs it up, besides the papers and what they were taught in school. If one can think for themselves instead of beholden to their schooling, then they may be able to look at another pov and find what science states about it. I've looked for evidence of humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs and I told you already what I found.

Anyway, I'm more negatively inclined that you won't believe because of your atheism and need for support. Maybe one of your members already died and now is learning the truth.

Science has never 'backed up' biblical tales and fables.

Reiterating propaganda from Flat Earther websites makes you appear to be quite desperate.

 

[surada]

Science doesn't support the Bible st

This isn't just to you, surada.

I understand the atheists WRONG pov though. I went to HS and university and learned evolution, but realized it was just a hypothesis. It became called a THEORY (stronger assertion) due to those papers that the scientists wrote. The scientists got funding from the USG and got more recognition. We all accepted evolution as there were no other papers submitted. We believe usually what we are taught in school. Later, I learned (after becoming Christian in 2012) that there was another scientific POV, but this wasn't acceptable in mainstream science due to a supernatural being involved. Thus, it wasn't explained as science would not accept a global flood nor God creating the universe, Earth and everything in it. But eventually science started to back up what was said in the Bible. This was observable and testable. Furthermore, I discovered there were scientists who believed in God (even though they couldn't admit it) that there were science that backed up the Bible. It was a big breakthrough for me as what's the point of religion if it wasn't true? I mean evolution led to atheism and the atheists here just want to use science to support their religion. This is what we are arguing so long and hard about.

So what's the answer. For me, I've found the TRUTH and just have to look for more evidence and explain what I have to back up the Bible. For the atheists, I would suggest continuing their search using evolution and finding that there is evidence that backs it up, besides the papers and what they were taught in school. If one can think for themselves instead of beholden to their schooling, then they may be able to look at another pov and find what science states about it. I've looked for evidence of humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs and I told you already what I found.

Anyway, I'm more negatively inclined that you won't believe because of your atheism and need for support. Maybe one of your members already died and now is learning the truth.

Science doesn't support the best Bible stories.

 

[Dagosa]

DNA proves Evolution occurred

It is a clear roadmap

I agree that DNA and genetics shows the mechanism of evolution. But whenever we use the word “proves”, we open ourselves to the deniers who think proof means a forever conclusive with a no change non reality. We expanded on Newtonian physics with quantum theory and we will expand upon evolution in the same way. We look at physics differently then Newton when it comes to cell phone technology, nuclear energy etc. and we look at evolution differently with the advent of genetics. Our understanding in everything is enhanced. That’s why we call them theories, not “proofs”. A proof is never altered in a closed system. Science never sits still.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I agree that DNA and genetics shows the mechanism of evolution. But whenever we use the word “proves”, we open ourselves to the deniers who think proof means a forever conclusive with a no change non reality.

Then just show any evidence that you have. Don't call it proof, call it evidence. You must know some.

Surely, you were not convinced on the basis that "scientists say so. At least the scientists that CNN lets on?"

We expanded on Newtonian physics with quantum theory and we will expand upon evolution in the same way. We look at physics differently then Newton when it comes to cell phone technology, nuclear energy etc. and we look at evolution differently with the advent of genetics. Our understanding in everything is enhanced. That’s why we call them theories, not “proofs”. A proof is never altered in a closed system. Science never sits still.

Darwinism is only a "theory" in the most colloquial sense. It is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not "a carefully thought out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypothesis."

It's an idea that can only be tested through observation. So far, no speciation by natural selection has been observed.

 

[surada]

Then just show any evidence that you have. Don't call it proof, call it evidence. You must know some.

Surely, you were not convinced on the basis that "scientists say so. At least the scientists that CNN lets on?"

Darwinism is only a "theory" in the most colloquial sense. It is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not "a carefully thought out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypothesis."

It's an idea that can only be tested through observation. So far, no speciation by natural selection has been observed.

See the latest find in Egypt.

 

[Seymour Flops]

See the latest find in Egypt.

Sure, right away!

I will be glad to run research that, debunk it with logic, then have you can say, "you didn't read it right; keep looking!"

Does that trick still fool the rubes?

If you have evidence that you will defend, post it please.

 

[Hollie]

Then just show any evidence that you have. Don't call it proof, call it evidence. You must know some.

Surely, you were not convinced on the basis that "scientists say so. At least the scientists that CNN lets on?"

Darwinism is only a "theory" in the most colloquial sense. It is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not "a carefully thought out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypothesis."

It's an idea that can only be tested through observation. So far, no speciation by natural selection has been observed.

It's odd that an ID'iot creationer launches into hysterical rants insisting that "Darwinism is not a theory in the scientific sense". That obviously contradicts the worldwide collection of data by scientists, chemists, paleontologists, geologists, etc., who actually test and publish, thus confirming the theory. Yet, against the supported data, we have ID'iot creationers who don't perform research. don't publish but who stand in front of green screens with fake labs.

There are no hacks more dishonest than ID'iot creationers.

 

[Dagosa]

Then just show any evidence that you have. Don't call it proof, call it evidence. You must know some.

Surely, you were not convinced on the basis that "scientists say so. At least the scientists that CNN lets on?"

Darwinism is only a "theory" in the most colloquial sense. It is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not "a carefully thought out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypothesis."

It's an idea that can only be tested through observation. So far, no speciation by natural selection has been observed.

Don’t be bashful. Just claim you’re smarter then Johns Hopkins, Harvard and UCL….Catholics and the pope and every major related food and medical institution in the world. Give us a good laugh while you align yourself with the science illeterates of the world.

I just had to correct fellow arrogant asteroid “ chem engineer” on another post claiming he knew more then every accredited school in the world about the periodic table. And I just used basic high school “ schooling” and a couple of references from his own schools. I’m not that smart compared to real experts. But I trust the real ones and compared to illiterate creationists, I’m a fking wizard. . .

 

[Dagosa]

It's odd that an ID'iot creationer launches into hysterical rants insisting that "Darwinism is not a theory in the scientific sense". That obviously contradicts the worldwide collection of data by scientists, chemists, paleontologists, geologists, etc., who actually test and publish, thus confirming the theory. Yet, against the supported data, we have ID'iot creationers who don't perform research. don't publish but who stand in front of green screens with fake labs.

There are no hacks more dishonest than ID'iot creationers.

Like most of those illiterates, they make up their own definitions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Don’t be bashful. Just claim you’re smarter then Johns Hopkins, Harvard and UCL….Catholics and the pope and every major related food and medical institution in the world. Give us a good laugh while you align yourself with the science illeterates of the world.

Which one of those did you get your degree from?

I just had to correct fellow arrogant asteroid “ chem engineer” on another post claiming he knew more then every accredited school in the world about the periodic table. And I just used basic high school “ schooling” and a couple of references from his own schools. I’m not that smart compared to real experts. But I trust the real ones and compared to illiterate creationists, I’m a fking wizard. . .

So you do know how to present evidence. Good.

Go ahead, then. Present evidence for speciation by natural selection.