And they said once man can never fly..... but yes we can not dig up the entire planet.
Fly? I love the evolutionary mythological stories about how flight developed.There's a big display on how flight evolved in birds. A big, dumb display. Because it only talks about wings, and there's a whole lot more to flying than just growing a pair of wings, but the Chuckie Dee Club doesn't want you to think about that. Just look at the display and let them do the thinking for you.
Flight is more than just wings. It's like saying if you just put wings on a big, wide, long tube, it'll be able to fly people across the world. Birds need more than wings to fly. They need just the right feathers, the right bones, the right muscles, the right respiratory system, the right weight, the right shape, and – get this – the ABILITY. Or did they just evolve that from thin air ( a pun, yes, a bad pun)? They need their brains to be wired up for flight. So, where did THAT come from? An explosion? THINK about this stuff. DON'T JUST ACCEPT IT.
I can't say that enough, but evolutionists just don't seem to get it.
We don't see evolution happening, no matter what pathetic "examples" the evolutionists try to foist on the public. In all the millions of species that still exist, not counting the extinct ones, there should be lots of evidence of evolution, and there's not. Stephen Gould called the lack of transitional fossils "the trade secret of paleontology." That's from one of the popes of evolution. What more could you ask for?
Well I dont like to call people retards but extreme cases may force me .....
Thanks for the intellectual input.
Isnt the extinction of a species the proof of their failures? Also what the heck is a not-fully-formed creature? Your expecting an organism with half a heart or 1/3 an eye or something? There are creatures with primitive forms of stuff and some advanced form of stuff and their intermediates...... but then again there are examples of creatures with half a brain or some even dont have any.
What is a not-fully-formed organism? Also if an organism is not functional, it wont have the chance to live and see if its fit for survival.
Things are going extinct in our own day. I think this is kind of funny, actually, how hypocritical evolutionists are. They're crying and whining about things going extinct on the one hand, while on the other they'd say that if things DIDN'T go extinct, "new" living things could not take their place. Well, where are all the "new" living things that should be popping into existence to supplant the ones going extinct? And why, for that matter, get upset about pollution and such? Won't new living things just adapt and evolve to live with it? And didn't all living things start in a mixture of noxious gases at the beginning of time? So why worry?! The fossils do not show "failed" evolutionary experiments. They show completely formed, functional living things, with eyes, bones, etc. They show things that died off for one reason or other, and were NOT replaced. A "failed" evolutionary experiment (and the record should show COUNTLESS ones) would be something like a half formed wings, or an elbow on the forehead of a human, or a toe sticking out of a knee. THOSE would show that evolution was "at work" to figure out where would be the best place for those things to be. How about a stomach attached to a hand, or a mouth with teeth on the outside, running up the nose? That would be a real evolutionary experiment in the making.How is it that evolution "knew" just the right places to put everything? How did it know to put teeth in your mouth, and not on your feet? Have you ever THOUGHT about this stuff?
Well since we dont have time machines we can not go back and take pictures... so sometimes we are fored to use imagination to get an idea... for example If we got only the left leg, not the right.... we can have an accurate guess what the right leg would look like.
Lack of trasitional fossils? I think its otherwise:
You must be registered for see links
Also I am sure there is always more than a couple of bones, some specimens are well preserved.
That is just a handful of imaginary, evolutionist wishful thinking "transitions."
As i said the fossil record shows fully formed, functional living things, not "becoming" things.
Yep it's all in imagination.Like those pictures of cave people are someone's imagination. Give an artist a bone, and who knows what "pre-humans" will look like when he gets through with it? It's all imagination. Nobody can take one of my jaw bones and tell me what I looked like without having actually seen me, but these guys are dead sure about what somebody looked like, and where they lived, and how they lived, based on a few fossil teeth or bones.
So cave couple decide to have a baby. Where did they figure out how to do that?Did some fish that turned into an amphibian that turned into a chimpanzee that turned into a caveman show them how? And if fish have babies by laying eggs, then why did that have to change? The fish were doing just fine. In fact, why did they even have to come out of the water? Are they better off now that they're people, on land, shooting at each other? Oh, by the way, fish eggs and other eggs are real "simple" things, aren't they? I mean, what does it take to make an egg that contains all the information to create a new organism? A kid could do it in his spare time. Just make sure it's a couple million years of spare time, because Time can perform all miracles. The Time goddess made eggs! Thanks, Time! Thanks for bacon, too!
U probably deserve an award for that..... not trying to understand a topic and blabbing on.
Sorry you did not pick up on the sarcasm in my statement about having a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. I’ll just leave it at that.
No it wont turn to a dollar but it may be buried back to the deep earth.... be melted in the mantle .....then finally form a igneous rock or something. Also non living things dont evolve.
There is not a shred of evidence that particles can organize themselves, come to life, begin to replicate, and turn into every living thing we know. NONE. Therefore, the "time" element is irrelevant! You can add all the Time you want! It just ain't gonna happen!
Ever heard of Lenski? That guy took only 25 years to get a minor evolutionary change in some bacteria. See:
You must be registered for see links
What they are observing is nothing more than duplication,rearrangement of the preexsisting information while loosing the regulation mechanism which then allowed the uptake of citrate by the E. Coli.
Experiments performed in a lab that SUPPOSEDLY DEMONSTRATE OR PROVE EVOLUTION do not emulate nature, because they have a designer, a creator, and a superintendent who runs the experiment to make sure everything works properly and gets results, and then an intelligent being interprets and applies the results. That's completely contrary to the notion that nature created itself and runs itself, with no outside information, no outside intelligence, and no outside guidance, and no purpose other than that which we assign to it.
That doesn't prove that bacteria turned into Bob all by themselves.
Yes yes they may fudge it but may be forced or persuaded to fudge it etc etc
There are also a number of articles online that deal with the fallacies of radiometric dating and how scientists "fudge" to get the results they want. He who seeks, finds.
Some of the people does that... not only scientists ..... But usually not entire community of a particular discipline is not involved.
Most things are filled with hoaxes and misconceptions..... after discovery of radiation, some retards began selling uranium products like soaps and belts claiming they got miraculous powers.
Are you naive enough to think that an evolutionist is going to give an unbiased review of research that goes against his cherished mythology? If you are, then too bad for you.
Read some articles about the established fact of bias in "peer review." The operative word is PEER, as in PEER PRESSURE.
Large number people of the scientific community rejected the popular idea spread about by the media and declared it to be inconclusive.
They're all hoax, likes the reconstructions, drawings, modelling which reflect only evolutionists' imaginations, not scientific discoveries.
"You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher." Earnest A. Hooton
There was a smear propaganda against it..... but things was resolved long ago with a proper conclusion.
OF COURSE they're not going to admit it's irrelevant.
I have done so...... but a few attention seeking cowards not gonna implicate the entire idea.
The entire idea explains nothing. People explain things. It's called interpretation.The entire idea has never been validated nor tested, but that won't change anything.If the PRIESTS of evolution themselves believe it, it MUST be true, and WHO ARE WE to question it.
It's a faith belief defended by fanatics.
Any theory is like that..... are u aware how much any other theory like Theory of Radiation or the Theory of Propagation of Light, or Structure of Atoms was changed and corrected when new data came to be revealed?
Well, it's now been 150 years since Darwin wrote his evolution Bible. Isn't that long enough for some "proof" to show up? What you're doing is like the loonies who don't believe we landed on the moon. If we just wait long enough, will we find out they're right? No. Because they're not right. So, no matter how long you wait (and of course, in evolution, TIME and the waiting game are very important, aren't they?), the fact is that evolution is never going to be proven. Of course, you might want to wait millions of years, but unfortunately you won't be around then to know evolution was finally proven.
Well yes that happened during a lab experiment..... some basic subtances put together in a container and left alone for a long time under extreme conditions similar to early earth situations and volia there were some complex proteins or something.
Putting molecules in a flask requires a creator and designer, who creates and designs the experiment, sets all the parameters so that he gets the outcome he’s hoping for, starts the experiment, and ends it. The experiment did not create and run itself. It was created and run by an outside intelligence. That alone negates it as any sort of “proof” of evolution.
Even the defination of life is confusing due to the little buggers called viruses.
Virus are clearly non-living.
As opposed to someone teaching them? Even about how to cell divide?
Through the processes of mindless evolution.
Seemingly yes. But u missed trillions of intermediate steps. Also even most primitive of cells have digestive systems..... they are as old as life they seems, except for viruses or some similar kind.
You don't realize that it's way to complex to have just come about by random processes.There is no such mechanism that could have started it all, and increased information and complexity without an intelligent source.
I would repeat: Just like he figured out how to change some genes in some organism to make them immune against certain substances and microorganisms that was previously harming them.... he figured them out.
He? With no direction, purpose, or intelligence.It's just MAGICAL!
Also judging from your wordings.... ur looking for a God or something similar, saying how evolution figured that out or this out. Its like saying that a volcano knows where the weakest point in the crust is, so that it can move through it.
What does that have to do with how blind chance, mechanistic evolution produced the universe and all the marvelous diversity of life on earth?
Yet the genetic structure itself changes..... also Evolution is not science?
Information, such as that found in genetic material, cannot arise on its own, without a source, nor is it useful standing on its own, without a code, mode of transmission, mode of reception, and the machinery to make it useful.
And here is the typical retarded leap retards take to win the argument. Development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria only suggests that 'living things magically alter their genetic codes to better adapt to drastic situations'...... it does not suggest the shit ur shitting.
That is a typical evolutionist response.Just look up "antibiotic resistance is not evolution" and you'll find lots of articles on it.Certainly there must be something in there that would educate you. However, to make it simple, antibiotic resistance does not demonstrate evolution for the following reasons: First, it arises in genetic material that is ALREADY present. I can't say that enough, but evolutionists just don't seem to get it. Second, when an antibiotic is introduced, bacteria that are ALREADY PRESENT and have resistance flourish, where the normal flora is killed off. Third, when the antibiotic is removed, the normal flora return and the resistant strains die out. Now, if you can tell me how that demonstrates how bacteria arose from nothing and turned into bacteria, then we'll be getting somewhere.
Ohh really? U better rescearch too:
You must be registered for see links
,
You must be registered for see links
,
You must be registered for see links
etc
No sign of transitional fossils that indicate an evolution.Thanks to prove my point.
Many things fall flat with that kind of logic....... Even the sudden appearance or creation of the Earth from nowhere and nothing, by some unknown force, is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or observable in the present.
Evolution is not testable.You cannot test whether a shrew turned into a human (which, in case you didn't know it, is one of the assumptions evolutionists make). You cannot test whether a rock really is 5 million years old. You cannot test whether an imaginary 'primordial soup' generated cells. Even if you could do that in a laboratory experiment, that would not prove it actually happened in nature.You cannot test whether clouds of interstellar gas really do collapse and form stars - intuition and direct observation seem to contradict that outright, in fact. You can only observe what you're able to, and then INTERPRET those observations accorting to your pre-determined paradigm. It's that pre-determined paradigm that needs to be tested, and the evolutionary one fails every time.
Nope: Reread Lenski Experiment.
Read the above.
Well provide the testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or observable in the present, substitute and prove it beyond doubt and everyone will trash The Theory of Evolution. But until .......
Unworthy of response, there's plenty of evidence to disprove evolution. You're not looking for any such thing, or you'd find it easily.But since you, on the other hand, produced testable evidence that particles made themselves and turned themselves into you by evolutionary magic!
Nope: we are going to study and research until everything makes sense and we reach enlightenment.
Evolution doesn't make sense.If evolution makes sense to you I can only say I feel sorry for you and hope you will think about it more.
Thats the logical thing to do, as u can not cut a tree with an water pistol.
Like the theory of evolution explains nothing.
Basic logic suggests, that strange light = source of light which may or may not be a flying saucer..... it is never strange light = flying saucer....... their logic is flawed.
Faith belief
Well your presumption is wrong at the root: Astrology is used by some people to PREDICT the future, they do not guide the world rather the world is seemingly reflected in them. Plus this is debatable since there IS some instances of successful predictions...... so there may or may not be shred of truth in them, so let us observe and come to a conclusion .... and current conclusion is that its no more accurate than palm reading.
When it comes to evolution, there is neither logical, reasonable, nor scientific data to support any of it, so my faith belief is nothing short of blind fanaticism. I WANT to believe it, so that's why I do. Just like flying saucers, planet-forming stardust, astrology, and all the other kooky things we choose to believe with no rational reason for doing so.
Theories are supposed to explain the data, so yes it has to explain everything. Also scientists dont create fairy tales, people does.... scientists come to conclusion form data.
The point of science is to investigate what is. Not to invent myths that do nothing to explain where "what is" came from. Science invents rockets. Science Fiction invents evolution. Science would not exist if it were not for faith. The scientist has faith that his hypothesis will hold water and turn out to be a demonstrable fact, otherwise he wouldn't bother. The fool has faith in something that he has neither seen, nor can see, and that can not be demonstrated from either an empirical or a logical standpoint. If you believe that nothing turned itself into everything when there is absolutely no factual nor logical way of proving such a thing, then you have blind faith.
Need supporting data to be accepted in a scientific manner.
All the available data refute evolution.
Same goes for Theory of Light, Structure of Atoms etc etc then?
Those are testable and observable (to a degree). Evolution is not. No one has ever seen an information-increasing mutation, which would be absolutely necessary for the theory of evolution to be validated, nor have they proposed any mechanism whereby the information contained in DNA and the DNA molecule itself could have arisen on their own, begun reproducing, and made every living thing in existence. That is STUPID and I hope you come to recognize it.
Majority of Biologists believe and works with The theory of Evolution.
I think most evolutionists know exactly what they're doing, and why, by manipulating facts and telling outright lies.
Well Theory of Evolution explains stuff, Evolution is an phenomenon.
Evolution is something old turning into something new, on its own with no outside influence, strictly by random chance. I just don’t see how believing such a thing is any more logical than believing some alien in the sky makes it happen.
Let people explain/interpret say Electro Magnetic Induction.
I don't understand "say Electro Magnetic Induction" but it doesn't really matter...
Ah I could say so much in response..... but I will just say: 'Mirror Mirror on the Wall'
Sooner or later, you're going to have to look in the mirror and admit that you have no defense for the indefensible!
