Evolution lies

[alang1216]

The simple fact is that if a human skeleton was found right next to a Dinosaur,

The simple fact is that the discoverer would have found the single greatest find in the history of science. They would be famous and the money would be pouring in. Quite the incentive I think.

No they wouldn't. Such a discovery would bring down/undermine years of scientific research and call everything now regarded as scientific into questionable poppycock. Atheists would suddenly have to find a church and give up their excuses ---- it wouldn't be allowed to see the light of day.

Unlike some other groups, scientists are in it to find truths. Their greatest desire is to make a discovery that would bring down/undermine years of scientific research and call everything now regarded as scientific into questionable poppycock. Sorry but there is no vast scientific conspiracy, it is just fantasy.

 

[Ringtone]

I doubt you have the first clue what I'm even talking about, brainwash.

Evolutionist: Oh, look, species have appeared and gone extinct over time. They have similar biological and genetic structures (as if, mind you, the terrestrial creatures of common design would be radically dissimilar): common ancestry must be true!

LOL!

You're right, I don't have the first clue what you're even talking about.

Your ignorance of biology and fossils is not really a great selling point, you might want to address the evidence. Species have appeared and gone extinct over time, you're right there. So where do these new species come from?

You ass. My ignorance of biology?! By which you actually mean my rejection of the hypothesis of evolution, which I understand very well. You don't have the first friggin' clue what I know or don't know about the matter. You imbecilic atheists predictably spout the same slogans over and over again.

It's tiresome.

"Oh, you reject the hypothesis of evolution? You must not understand the hypothesis and the purported evidence for it."

New flash: the fundamentals of the hypothesis, the purported evidence for it, the evolutionist's underlying presupposition and the reasoning thereof are not the stuff of rocket science. I pulled down straight A's on the various aspects of the hypothesis in college, in exams and papers, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I actually believed it was all a crock, a myth, a bedtime story, a fantasy, a fairy tale, a pile of crap. . . .

You don't understand what I'm getting at, apparently, by your own admission, regarding the underlying metaphysics of scientific inquiry in general and the underlying metaphysics of the hypothesis in particular. It's you who doesn't really grasp, ultimately, why you believe it to be true. You unwittingly beg the question, presuppose the conclusion in your premise, every time you open your yap. Essentially, your "religious" conviction comes down to this: naturalism is necessarily true; therefore, evolution is necessarily true. LOL! Zoom! Right over your head.

For someone who believes God doesn't exist, you sure do act as if he does, and apparently you think your it as you unwittingly claim that naturalism/materialism is absolutely true . . . as if you had all knowledge like God. LOL!

As for the foundation of existence, the issue is not knowing precisely what preceded the Big Bang or what preceded the putative, primordial quantum vacuum . . . or, even, for that matter, what materially preceded the latter if anything. The issue is that the material realm of being is obviously a mutable and, therefore, contingent existent. It cannot possibly be the eternal ground of existence. The evidence for that conclusion is both empirical and rational.

Once again, those who stupidly claim there is no evidence for God's existence are rank imbeciles and liars.

You are very articulate when it comes to telling me I'm wrong but much less so about telling me why I'm wrong and why you are right. If you understand the science behind evolution you don't show it. I asked a simple question which you completely ignored: "So where do these new species come from?"

What question was that?

 

[Ringtone]

Once again, those who stupidly claim there is no evidence for God's existence are rank imbeciles and liars.

Odd, that for another of your emotional outbursts, you’re still a failure at offering any evidence for your various gods.

View attachment 434985

Nincompoop Alert!

 

[Hollie]

I doubt you have the first clue what I'm even talking about, brainwash.

Evolutionist: Oh, look, species have appeared and gone extinct over time. They have similar biological and genetic structures (as if, mind you, the terrestrial creatures of common design would be radically dissimilar): common ancestry must be true!

LOL!

You're right, I don't have the first clue what you're even talking about.

Your ignorance of biology and fossils is not really a great selling point, you might want to address the evidence. Species have appeared and gone extinct over time, you're right there. So where do these new species come from?

You ass. My ignorance of biology?! By which you actually mean my rejection of the hypothesis of evolution, which I understand very well. You don't have the first friggin' clue what I know or don't know about the matter. You imbecilic atheists predictably spout the same slogans over and over again.

It's tiresome.

"Oh, you reject the hypothesis of evolution? You must not understand the hypothesis and the purported evidence for it."

New flash: the fundamentals of the hypothesis, the purported evidence for it, the evolutionist's underlying presupposition and the reasoning thereof are not the stuff of rocket science. I pulled down straight A's on the various aspects of the hypothesis in college, in exams and papers, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I actually believed it was all a crock, a myth, a bedtime story, a fantasy, a fairy tale, a pile of crap. . . .

You don't understand what I'm getting at, apparently, by your own admission, regarding the underlying metaphysics of scientific inquiry in general and the underlying metaphysics of the hypothesis in particular. It's you who doesn't really grasp, ultimately, why you believe it to be true. You unwittingly beg the question, presuppose the conclusion in your premise, every time you open your yap. Essentially, your "religious" conviction comes down to this: naturalism is necessarily true; therefore, evolution is necessarily true. LOL! Zoom! Right over your head.

For someone who believes God doesn't exist, you sure do act as if he does, and apparently you think your it as you unwittingly claim that naturalism/materialism is absolutely true . . . as if you had all knowledge like God. LOL!

As for the foundation of existence, the issue is not knowing precisely what preceded the Big Bang or what preceded the putative, primordial quantum vacuum . . . or, even, for that matter, what materially preceded the latter if anything. The issue is that the material realm of being is obviously a mutable and, therefore, contingent existent. It cannot possibly be the eternal ground of existence. The evidence for that conclusion is both empirical and rational.

Once again, those who stupidly claim there is no evidence for God's existence are rank imbeciles and liars.

The hyper-religious types who are clearly unschooled and uneducated in the biological sciences will float the “hypothesis” label for biological evolution. They are unaware that biological evolution is among the most well documented and supported theories in science.

The hyper-religious rail against science and evolution because the biological sciences represent a direct and unresolvable contradiction to a young earth and the magical, supernatural elements of the Genesis fable.

 

[Hollie]

Once again, those who stupidly claim there is no evidence for God's existence are rank imbeciles and liars.

Odd, that for another of your emotional outbursts, you’re still a failure at offering any evidence for your various gods.

View attachment 434985

Nincompoop Alert!

Yes, you’re forced to retreat to your school boy antics when your false claims are exposed as fraud. You poor, dear. You entered a thread in a public message board with the anticipation that your ignorance would not be your own worst enemy.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

Evolution is FAT.



Jesus Christ is SUPERSTAR.

 

[alang1216]

I doubt you have the first clue what I'm even talking about, brainwash.

Evolutionist: Oh, look, species have appeared and gone extinct over time. They have similar biological and genetic structures (as if, mind you, the terrestrial creatures of common design would be radically dissimilar): common ancestry must be true!

LOL!

You're right, I don't have the first clue what you're even talking about.

Your ignorance of biology and fossils is not really a great selling point, you might want to address the evidence. Species have appeared and gone extinct over time, you're right there. So where do these new species come from?

You ass. My ignorance of biology?! By which you actually mean my rejection of the hypothesis of evolution, which I understand very well. You don't have the first friggin' clue what I know or don't know about the matter. You imbecilic atheists predictably spout the same slogans over and over again.

It's tiresome.

"Oh, you reject the hypothesis of evolution? You must not understand the hypothesis and the purported evidence for it."

New flash: the fundamentals of the hypothesis, the purported evidence for it, the evolutionist's underlying presupposition and the reasoning thereof are not the stuff of rocket science. I pulled down straight A's on the various aspects of the hypothesis in college, in exams and papers, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I actually believed it was all a crock, a myth, a bedtime story, a fantasy, a fairy tale, a pile of crap. . . .

You don't understand what I'm getting at, apparently, by your own admission, regarding the underlying metaphysics of scientific inquiry in general and the underlying metaphysics of the hypothesis in particular. It's you who doesn't really grasp, ultimately, why you believe it to be true. You unwittingly beg the question, presuppose the conclusion in your premise, every time you open your yap. Essentially, your "religious" conviction comes down to this: naturalism is necessarily true; therefore, evolution is necessarily true. LOL! Zoom! Right over your head.

For someone who believes God doesn't exist, you sure do act as if he does, and apparently you think your it as you unwittingly claim that naturalism/materialism is absolutely true . . . as if you had all knowledge like God. LOL!

As for the foundation of existence, the issue is not knowing precisely what preceded the Big Bang or what preceded the putative, primordial quantum vacuum . . . or, even, for that matter, what materially preceded the latter if anything. The issue is that the material realm of being is obviously a mutable and, therefore, contingent existent. It cannot possibly be the eternal ground of existence. The evidence for that conclusion is both empirical and rational.

Once again, those who stupidly claim there is no evidence for God's existence are rank imbeciles and liars.

You are very articulate when it comes to telling me I'm wrong but much less so about telling me why I'm wrong and why you are right. If you understand the science behind evolution you don't show it. I asked a simple question which you completely ignored: "So where do these new species come from?"

What question was that?

For the 3rd time: "So where do these new species come from?"

 

[rightwinger]

An irrefutable explanation of Evolution

 

[Ringtone]

I doubt you have the first clue what I'm even talking about, brainwash.

Evolutionist: Oh, look, species have appeared and gone extinct over time. They have similar biological and genetic structures (as if, mind you, the terrestrial creatures of common design would be radically dissimilar): common ancestry must be true!

LOL!

You're right, I don't have the first clue what you're even talking about.

Your ignorance of biology and fossils is not really a great selling point, you might want to address the evidence. Species have appeared and gone extinct over time, you're right there. So where do these new species come from?

You ass. My ignorance of biology?! By which you actually mean my rejection of the hypothesis of evolution, which I understand very well. You don't have the first friggin' clue what I know or don't know about the matter. You imbecilic atheists predictably spout the same slogans over and over again.

It's tiresome.

"Oh, you reject the hypothesis of evolution? You must not understand the hypothesis and the purported evidence for it."

New flash: the fundamentals of the hypothesis, the purported evidence for it, the evolutionist's underlying presupposition and the reasoning thereof are not the stuff of rocket science. I pulled down straight A's on the various aspects of the hypothesis in college, in exams and papers, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I actually believed it was all a crock, a myth, a bedtime story, a fantasy, a fairy tale, a pile of crap. . . .

You don't understand what I'm getting at, apparently, by your own admission, regarding the underlying metaphysics of scientific inquiry in general and the underlying metaphysics of the hypothesis in particular. It's you who doesn't really grasp, ultimately, why you believe it to be true. You unwittingly beg the question, presuppose the conclusion in your premise, every time you open your yap. Essentially, your "religious" conviction comes down to this: naturalism is necessarily true; therefore, evolution is necessarily true. LOL! Zoom! Right over your head.

For someone who believes God doesn't exist, you sure do act as if he does, and apparently you think your it as you unwittingly claim that naturalism/materialism is absolutely true . . . as if you had all knowledge like God. LOL!

As for the foundation of existence, the issue is not knowing precisely what preceded the Big Bang or what preceded the putative, primordial quantum vacuum . . . or, even, for that matter, what materially preceded the latter if anything. The issue is that the material realm of being is obviously a mutable and, therefore, contingent existent. It cannot possibly be the eternal ground of existence. The evidence for that conclusion is both empirical and rational.

Once again, those who stupidly claim there is no evidence for God's existence are rank imbeciles and liars.

You are very articulate when it comes to telling me I'm wrong but much less so about telling me why I'm wrong and why you are right. If you understand the science behind evolution you don't show it. I asked a simple question which you completely ignored: "So where do these new species come from?"

What question was that?

For the 3rd time: "So where do these new species come from?"

From God, of course.

 

[BreezeWood]

The simple fact is that if a human skeleton was found right next to a Dinosaur, the evolutionist would do one of three things. He would either hide the fact, he would deny the fact, or he would find an excuse for the fact. The evolutionist wouldn't say, "Well, I guess that proves man and dinosaurs lived at the same time." What is a concern for me is that I do feel that evolutionists have done this for the last 100 years, and are hiding objects from public display that they cannot explain in evolutionary terms and that go against their train of thought. They have done this regarding various footprints that have been discovered and are immovable. In at least one instance a human footprint was even defaced and declared to be only another dinosaurs track... I for one do accept that change within species is a God allowed trait, so that the various individual species can survive in a changing environment. HOWEVER, changes that supposedly transformed one species into another cannot be proven and as far as I'm concerned never occurred. That is the lie/fraud of the evolutionist. It is not honest science.

.

HOWEVER, changes that supposedly transformed one species into another cannot be proven and as far as I'm concerned never occurred. That is the lie/fraud of the evolutionist. It is not honest science.

.
because the transition is metaphysical it can more be explained than proven -
.

.
the transformation of a being from a land creature to an avian - is the same process of one species becoming a new species in a single instance that from that time forward is reproducible and is a metaphysically directed change to its physiological substance.

 

[alang1216]

"So where do these new species come from?"

From God, of course.

So Genesis was wrong and God continues to create new species? Why didn't he just create them all at one time? Why have most species gone extinct, was God just learning, experimenting, or fooling around?

 

[Ringtone]

"So where do these new species come from?"

From God, of course.

So Genesis was wrong and God continues to create new species? Why didn't he just create them all at one time? Why have most species gone extinct, was God just learning, experimenting, or fooling around?

What do you mean, precisely, by new species given the fluidity of that term?

 

[james bond]

An irrefutable explanation of Evolution

Evolution only happens in cartoons. In real life...



No aliens. No abiogenesis.

 

[rightwinger]

An irrefutable explanation of Evolution

Evolution only happens in cartoons. In real life...



No aliens. No abiogenesis.

I Dream of Genie has as much validity as Genesis

 

[Ringtone]

An irrefutable explanation of Evolution

Evolution only happens in cartoons. In real life...



No aliens. No abiogenesis.

I Dream of Genie has as much validity as Genesis

Mindless, Slogan-Spouter Alert!

 

[BreezeWood]

An irrefutable explanation of Evolution

Evolution only happens in cartoons. In real life...



No aliens. No abiogenesis.

.

No aliens. No abiogenesis.

.
there is nowhere in the universe without life, the elements of the periodic table.

as well the physiological substance derived from the same periodic table will manifest itself wherever conditions are conducive for its development, natural abiogenesis the truly unknown is the spiritual content that motivates the physiology associated with it and its origin being the same in time and their inseparable combination what occurs when the physiology expires.

 

[alang1216]

"So where do these new species come from?"

From God, of course.

So Genesis was wrong and God continues to create new species? Why didn't he just create them all at one time? Why have most species gone extinct, was God just learning, experimenting, or fooling around?

What do you mean, precisely, by new species given the fluidity of that term?

The scientific term is not fluid but if you look at the oldest land rocks (those buried deepest) there are only amphibians. Younger rocks have reptiles too. Still younger rocks have dinosaurs and mammals, etc.

 

[Ringtone]

"So where do these new species come from?"

From God, of course.

So Genesis was wrong and God continues to create new species? Why didn't he just create them all at one time? Why have most species gone extinct, was God just learning, experimenting, or fooling around?

What do you mean, precisely, by new species given the fluidity of that term?

The scientific term is not fluid but if you look at the oldest land rocks (those buried deepest) there are only amphibians. Younger rocks have reptiles too. Still younger rocks have dinosaurs and mammals, etc.

Uh, I beg to differ. For example, any new strain a bacterium is a new species, but, of course, it is still a bacterium.

As for the rest, which I'm well aware of, what's your point?.

 

[alang1216]

"So where do these new species come from?"

From God, of course.

So Genesis was wrong and God continues to create new species? Why didn't he just create them all at one time? Why have most species gone extinct, was God just learning, experimenting, or fooling around?

What do you mean, precisely, by new species given the fluidity of that term?

The scientific term is not fluid but if you look at the oldest land rocks (those buried deepest) there are only amphibians. Younger rocks have reptiles too. Still younger rocks have dinosaurs and mammals, etc.

Uh, I beg to differ. For example, any new strain a bacterium is a new species, but, of course, it is still a bacterium.

As for the rest, which I'm well aware of, what's your point?.

Genesis says all life was created at the same time. The fossil record says the exact opposite. I'm not talking about the Bible's 'Kinds', I'm talking about, not only different species but major differences like between sharks and whales.

 

[Hollie]

I doubt you have the first clue what I'm even talking about, brainwash.

Evolutionist: Oh, look, species have appeared and gone extinct over time. They have similar biological and genetic structures (as if, mind you, the terrestrial creatures of common design would be radically dissimilar): common ancestry must be true!

LOL!

You're right, I don't have the first clue what you're even talking about.

Your ignorance of biology and fossils is not really a great selling point, you might want to address the evidence. Species have appeared and gone extinct over time, you're right there. So where do these new species come from?

You ass. My ignorance of biology?! By which you actually mean my rejection of the hypothesis of evolution, which I understand very well. You don't have the first friggin' clue what I know or don't know about the matter. You imbecilic atheists predictably spout the same slogans over and over again.

It's tiresome.

"Oh, you reject the hypothesis of evolution? You must not understand the hypothesis and the purported evidence for it."

New flash: the fundamentals of the hypothesis, the purported evidence for it, the evolutionist's underlying presupposition and the reasoning thereof are not the stuff of rocket science. I pulled down straight A's on the various aspects of the hypothesis in college, in exams and papers, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I actually believed it was all a crock, a myth, a bedtime story, a fantasy, a fairy tale, a pile of crap. . . .

You don't understand what I'm getting at, apparently, by your own admission, regarding the underlying metaphysics of scientific inquiry in general and the underlying metaphysics of the hypothesis in particular. It's you who doesn't really grasp, ultimately, why you believe it to be true. You unwittingly beg the question, presuppose the conclusion in your premise, every time you open your yap. Essentially, your "religious" conviction comes down to this: naturalism is necessarily true; therefore, evolution is necessarily true. LOL! Zoom! Right over your head.

For someone who believes God doesn't exist, you sure do act as if he does, and apparently you think your it as you unwittingly claim that naturalism/materialism is absolutely true . . . as if you had all knowledge like God. LOL!

As for the foundation of existence, the issue is not knowing precisely what preceded the Big Bang or what preceded the putative, primordial quantum vacuum . . . or, even, for that matter, what materially preceded the latter if anything. The issue is that the material realm of being is obviously a mutable and, therefore, contingent existent. It cannot possibly be the eternal ground of existence. The evidence for that conclusion is both empirical and rational.

Once again, those who stupidly claim there is no evidence for God's existence are rank imbeciles and liars.

You are very articulate when it comes to telling me I'm wrong but much less so about telling me why I'm wrong and why you are right. If you understand the science behind evolution you don't show it. I asked a simple question which you completely ignored: "So where do these new species come from?"

What question was that?

For the 3rd time: "So where do these new species come from?"

From God, of course.

So the gods are magically creating new species?

What was the most recent species that they created?