Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[edthecynic]

Hey, that was YOUR buddy, not mine! Talk to him! I was merely ridiculing an absurd example presented of supposed cross-genus speciation. I couldn't agree with you more.

No, that is all YOURS! I gave you an example of a MAMMAL that still had remnants of its evolutionary history. According to you a mammal is a mammal and has nothing reptilian about it. It is a crossover species, mostly mammal part reptile.

You are showing your ignorance on the theory you hold dear. It is not a transitional animal. Look this is from your side. This is Daws 's favorite site because he does not know enough to debate the issue and this is the site he runs to when he don't know what to say which is often.


Creationism and the Platypus

From your link:

In summary, the features of the living platypus, and the evidence available from its scanty fossil record, are both consistent with the idea that it has evolved from primitive mammals which still had many reptilian characteristics.

 

[daws101]

Hey, that was YOUR buddy, not mine! Talk to him! I was merely ridiculing an absurd example presented of supposed cross-genus speciation. I couldn't agree with you more.

No, that is all YOURS! I gave you an example of a MAMMAL that still had remnants of its evolutionary history. According to you a mammal is a mammal and has nothing reptilian about it. It is a crossover species, mostly mammal part reptile.

You are showing your ignorance on the theory you hold dear. It is not a transitional animal. Look this is from your side. This is Daws 's favorite site because he does not know enough to debate the issue and this is the site he runs to when he don't know what to say which is often.


Creationism and the Platypus

that's a lie shit head...
please present any proof you have that I've every used that site.
you tried to pull this same shit on the other thread and you got your ass handed to you.
and stop being such a ***** and have the balls to address me directly especially if you're talking out your ass like now.

 

[daws101]

Wild speculation with nothing resembling evidence or proof. This is a faith-based theory with less evidence than the existence of God.

ok show me some evidence other wise..

You made the claim, you provide the proof.

already have it's on you to prove it wrong.

 

[daws101]

yes I did ....

No, you didn't.

Did darkness create light, or did light create darkness?

Daws is the biggest know it all dummy you will ever meet.

lol!
when you answer like that it smoking gun evidence that I'm right.

 

[S.J.]

ok show me some evidence other wise..

You made the claim, you provide the proof.

already have it's on you to prove it wrong.

You haven't proven anything, you made an assumption.

 

[BreezeWood]

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

Ed it's this simple God created everything that includes people that do evil. He did not create evil he created being's capable of doing evil. In other words commit sin. Did God create evil beings no he did not they chose to be evil the same as they did since the beginning.

can you rationalize any harder!
if god created "everything" then by definition god created evil.
if not, the title of all mighty god is bogus!
funny how you asshats refashion the holy word every chance you get.
isn't that a sin?

if god created "everything" then by definition god created evil.


does Evil have a spiritual existence of its own ... no, Evil does not exist -


Life's decisions made within the physiological form are what determine the probability for its existence after the form expires.

this is made clear in the corrupt Bible - those who "create" evil will perish, those who conquer Evil will accomplish Remission and be given acceptance into the Everlasting.


the Everlasting is not the Definitive proof of God's existence - that is determined by the Life that inhabits it.

 

[daws101]

Synapsids
Temporal range: Mississippian—Present, 320–0Ma
Synapsids (Greek, 'fused arch'), synonymous with theropsids (Greek, 'beast-face'), are a group of animals that includes mammals and every animal more closely related to mammals than to other living amniotes.[1] They are easily separated from other amniotes by having a temporal fenestra, an opening low in the skull roof behind each eye, leaving a bony arch beneath each; this accounts for their name.[2] Primitive synapsids are usually called pelycosaurs; more advanced mammal-like ones, therapsids. The non-mammalian members are described as mammal-like reptiles in classical systematics;[3][4] they can also be called "stem mammals". Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of the later amniotes; the other is the sauropsids, a group that includes modern reptiles and birds. The distinctive temporal fenestra developed in the ancestral synapsid about 324 million years ago (mya), during the Late Carboniferous period.

Synapsids were the largest terrestrial vertebrates in the Permian period, 299 to 251 million years ago. As with almost all groups then extant, their numbers and variety were severely reduced by the Permian-Triassic extinction. Though some species survived into the Triassic period, archosaurs became the largest and most numerous land vertebrates in the course of this period. Few of the nonmammalian synapsids outlasted the Triassic, although survivors persisted into the Cretaceous. However, as a phylogenetic unit, they included the mammals as descendants, and in this sense synapsids are still very much a living group of vertebrates. After the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, the synapsids (in the form of mammals) again became the largest land animals.
The only extant synapsids today are mammals; all others are believed to be extinct.

Thank you, Daws, I was about to write something similar. You have saved me the trouble.

I wish the religious fanatics who scribble here would use the time they waste bickering in order to study some biology.

The mammal-like reptiles of the Permian and Triassic periods, like all other reptiles, have only one bone in their inner ear. All true mammals, both extant and extinct, have three bones in the inner ear. Two of the bones derive from two bones that were originally in the reptilian jaw. The steady migration of these two bones from the jaw to the inner ear is just one of the many, many proofs of Evolution.
.

NOT near as stupid as these pompous ignorant slapdicks would like to believe I am..
gotta love their meltdowns when actual fact is presented.

 

[daws101]

You made the claim, you provide the proof.

already have it's on you to prove it wrong.

You haven't proven anything, you made an assumption.

from your willfully ignorant pov I never will.
must suck to be you.

 

[daws101]

Ed it's this simple God created everything that includes people that do evil. He did not create evil he created being's capable of doing evil. In other words commit sin. Did God create evil beings no he did not they chose to be evil the same as they did since the beginning.

can you rationalize any harder!
if god created "everything" then by definition god created evil.
if not, the title of all mighty god is bogus!
funny how you asshats refashion the holy word every chance you get.
isn't that a sin?

if god created "everything" then by definition god created evil.


does Evil have a spiritual existence of its own ... no, Evil does not exist -


Life's decisions made within the physiological form are what determine the probability for its existence after the form expires.

this is made clear in the corrupt Bible - those who "create" evil will perish, those who conquer Evil will accomplish Remission and be given acceptance into the Everlasting.


the Everlasting is not the Definitive proof of God's existence - that is determined by the Life that inhabits it.

might wanna back off on the Sunday morning evangelical programs

 

[Boss]

More of your profound ignorance on display? Evolution is the means by which species ADAPT to changing environments. So in order to witness evolution you need to look at environments that changed during that period. One example were moths during the early industrial revolution. Everything became covered with soot from coal burning plants which meant that light colored moths were now easily visible to their prey against the dark background. These moths died out while darker colored moths survived. If there was an environmental change that made moth wings a liability they would adapt to no longer have them. Then if another change meant that it was advantageous for them to be able to swim and breathe underwater those that adapted would survive while the originals died out. Eventually you would have small swimming insects that you would consider to be a completely different species to the original moths. It is doubtful that you will accept any of these established facts because you have proven that you lack the necessary fundamental comprehension abilities. Have a nice day.

My ignorance? I beg to differ. Here, you apparently think that moths changing colors is an example of cross-genus speciation!

Once again you make erroneous assumptions.

"Evolution is the means by which species ADAPT to changing environments."

Try READING what I actually posted instead of repeatedly projecting your own ignorance.

I did read what you posted. I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much.

Let's be clear, you have presented an example of ONE genus, adapting and changing, but remaining ONE genus. Then, you make up some unsupportable nonsense about their wings and ability to swim, and claim this makes them a different species, but they still belong to the same genus, even IF you're correct. And how does ONE genus, changing and adapting, but remaining the same genus, give us billions of new unique genuses?

I don't accept what you are saying as "established fact" until you've proven it, and you certainly haven't done that. Animals do adapt and change over time, but they do not change genuses. New species may emerge within a genus, but this does not demonstrate or prove what you need to prove.

You admit that evolution works on a micro scale because there is clearly documented evidence for that happening. Macro evolution AKA the emergence of a different genus is merely the combination of micro evolution over time as environmental conditions change.

Thank you for proving that you do in fact lack the basic comprehension abilities to understand this topic.

You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.

 

[edthecynic]

My ignorance? I beg to differ. Here, you apparently think that moths changing colors is an example of cross-genus speciation!

Once again you make erroneous assumptions.

"Evolution is the means by which species ADAPT to changing environments."

Try READING what I actually posted instead of repeatedly projecting your own ignorance.

I did read what you posted. I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much.

Let's be clear, you have presented an example of ONE genus, adapting and changing, but remaining ONE genus. Then, you make up some unsupportable nonsense about their wings and ability to swim, and claim this makes them a different species, but they still belong to the same genus, even IF you're correct. And how does ONE genus, changing and adapting, but remaining the same genus, give us billions of new unique genuses?

I don't accept what you are saying as "established fact" until you've proven it, and you certainly haven't done that. Animals do adapt and change over time, but they do not change genuses. New species may emerge within a genus, but this does not demonstrate or prove what you need to prove.

You admit that evolution works on a micro scale because there is clearly documented evidence for that happening. Macro evolution AKA the emergence of a different genus is merely the combination of micro evolution over time as environmental conditions change.

Thank you for proving that you do in fact lack the basic comprehension abilities to understand this topic.

You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My ignorance? I beg to differ. Here, you apparently think that moths changing colors is an example of cross-genus speciation!

Once again you make erroneous assumptions.

"Evolution is the means by which species ADAPT to changing environments."

Try READING what I actually posted instead of repeatedly projecting your own ignorance.

I did read what you posted. I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much.

Let's be clear, you have presented an example of ONE genus, adapting and changing, but remaining ONE genus. Then, you make up some unsupportable nonsense about their wings and ability to swim, and claim this makes them a different species, but they still belong to the same genus, even IF you're correct. And how does ONE genus, changing and adapting, but remaining the same genus, give us billions of new unique genuses?

I don't accept what you are saying as "established fact" until you've proven it, and you certainly haven't done that. Animals do adapt and change over time, but they do not change genuses. New species may emerge within a genus, but this does not demonstrate or prove what you need to prove.

You admit that evolution works on a micro scale because there is clearly documented evidence for that happening. Macro evolution AKA the emergence of a different genus is merely the combination of micro evolution over time as environmental conditions change.

Thank you for proving that you do in fact lack the basic comprehension abilities to understand this topic.

You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.

Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific EVIDENCE for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary ADAPTION to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.

 

[amrchaos]

Why are we talking about science in a thread about spiritual existance?

Probably the same reason we keep having to talk about religion.

Well--I can see how religion and theology comes into the discussion, but why is there focus on science?

Science deals with the physical world. We already have a pretty good ideal what that is.


I am still trying to figure out what this spiritual world is. So, far it is not the physical world and it is not conceptual world--so what is it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why are we talking about science in a thread about spiritual existance?

Probably the same reason we keep having to talk about religion.

Well--I can see how religion and theology comes into the discussion, but why is there focus on science?

Science deals with the physical world. We already have a pretty good ideal what that is.


I am still trying to figure out what this spiritual world is. So, far it is not the physical world and it is not conceptual world--so what is it.

The believers were losing the "spiritual world" argument which is why they switched to attacking science. In essence there is no "spiritual world" at all. What we have are gaps in our scientific knowledge and mankind's ability to enter a "spiritual" state of mind. This mental state is really just a form of meditation. Given the complete and utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any deity the believers are attempting to claim that this state of mind is "evidence" of this mythical "spiritual world". So you were right on the money when you referred to it as a "conceptual world". It is just another figment of the imagination for those who need a "spiritual crutch" to help them limp through their lives.

 

[Boss]

Once again you make erroneous assumptions.

"Evolution is the means by which species ADAPT to changing environments."

Try READING what I actually posted instead of repeatedly projecting your own ignorance.

I did read what you posted. I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much.

You admit that evolution works on a micro scale because there is clearly documented evidence for that happening. Macro evolution AKA the emergence of a different genus is merely the combination of micro evolution over time as environmental conditions change.

Thank you for proving that you do in fact lack the basic comprehension abilities to understand this topic.

You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

 

[Derideo_Te]

I did read what you posted. I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much.



You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

Exactly what scientific "credentials" does the "boss" have to make these sweeping denunciations of peer reviewed scientific facts? He has already proven that he doesn't understand Darwin, Evolution, Logic and the English language. So does he have a "doctorate in denialism"?

 

[Boss]

Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific EVIDENCE for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary ADAPTION to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.

Let's save the personal insults and digs and focus on the debate, shall we? The fact that many varieties of life exist, does not constitute "evidence" that they must have come into existence the way you theorize. Sorry, that's circular reasoning.

ADAPTATION is not being questioned. I fully understand that things adapt, there is no argument about this. You're supposed to be explaining billions and billions of very distinct and different life forms, which supposedly (according to you) came from a single cell. You argue that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes to occur within a species, and you point to examples of species who share attributes with species of another genus, but what you are FAILING to provide evidence for, is CROSS-GENUS speciation. Darwin's theories don't explain this, and neither have you. It's pure speculation, based on your refusal to even consider any other possibility, besides the one you have adopted as a matter of FAITH.

 

[Boss]

Exactly what scientific "credentials" does the "boss" have to make these sweeping denunciations of peer reviewed scientific facts? He has already proven that he doesn't understand Darwin, Evolution, Logic and the English language. So does he have a "doctorate in denialism"?

There is not ANY peer reviewed scientific facts to support your concept of cross-genus speciation. NONE! NADDA! You can lie and claim there is, you can believe there is, but you can't show it to us because it doesn't exist. I think I understand Darwin and Evolution better than you, what you are claiming is not something espoused at all by Darwin. It's just flat out illogical bullshit, and you are trying to force it down our throats by intimidation and ridicule. Sorry, but that's not going to fly! EVER!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific EVIDENCE for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary ADAPTION to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.

Let's save the personal insults and digs and focus on the debate, shall we?

And yet you never fail to ignore your own advice.

The fact that many varieties of life exist, does not constitute "evidence" that they must have come into existence the way you theorize. Sorry, that's circular reasoning.

Why do your persist in IGNORING the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record.

ADAPTATION is not being questioned. I fully understand that things adapt, there is no argument about this. You're supposed to be explaining billions and billions of very distinct and different life forms, which supposedly (according to you) came from a single cell. You argue that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes to occur within a species, and you point to examples of species who share attributes with species of another genus, but what you are FAILING to provide evidence for, is CROSS-GENUS speciation.

Once again...the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record exists.

Darwin's theories don't explain this, and neither have you. It's pure speculation, based on your refusal to even consider any other possibility, besides the one you have adopted as a matter of FAITH.

Your failure to comprehend the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record does not negate Darwin or all of the other FACTS.

 

[Boss]

Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific EVIDENCE for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary ADAPTION to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.

Let's save the personal insults and digs and focus on the debate, shall we?

And yet you never fail to ignore your own advice.

Why do your persist in IGNORING the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record.

ADAPTATION is not being questioned. I fully understand that things adapt, there is no argument about this. You're supposed to be explaining billions and billions of very distinct and different life forms, which supposedly (according to you) came from a single cell. You argue that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes to occur within a species, and you point to examples of species who share attributes with species of another genus, but what you are FAILING to provide evidence for, is CROSS-GENUS speciation.

Once again...the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record exists.

Darwin's theories don't explain this, and neither have you. It's pure speculation, based on your refusal to even consider any other possibility, besides the one you have adopted as a matter of FAITH.

Your failure to comprehend the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record does not negate Darwin or all of the other FACTS.

DNA and fossil records do not support your theory, neither does Darwin. Things do adapt, species within a genus do evolve and new species do emerge. What doesn't happen, is cross-genus speciation. Some species do share attributes with other species from other genera, but this does not prove cross-genus speciation. We can't replicate this process in a lab environment where we control all the variables, but you claim this happened naturally. Not only do you claim this happened, but it had to happen quite often and rapidly, in order to produce billions of various genera in just a few billion years, and you admit that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes. Nothing in your theory is comporting with science or logic, it is mere speculation and assumption.

There has never been ANY evidence to support cross-genus speciation.