GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum | |
http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
General Category >> General Board >> For Evolution to be true.............. http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257653566 Message started by Forum Administrator on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm |
Title: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Forum Administrator on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm
We need evidence. Simple as that.
We need to have DNA from these fossils so that the "indoctrinated" people who believe this nonsense have something besides their brainwashed belief to base it on. There is no evidence of any creature ever changing into a new species with totally new morphology. No fish has ever become a land creature..Not ever. There is no empirical and absolute evidence for it. There are no transitional fossils either. There are fossil remains of creatures that came into existence, remained much the same, then went extinct. The ones that are still around have been here for over 50,000 years relatively unchanged and none have jumped genus as is the belief of evodelusionism. There is no DNA in fossils, but there are a lot of brainwashed believers. This has been going on for centuries in science. I call it "the world is flat" syndrome. If you get enough believers then it becomes real. What evidence do you have to show evolution as absolutely real, with NO opinions from anyone. I have asked at least 1000 people who believe in this nonsense and they never answer that question. Guess why? It is all based on opinions and nothing else. I have read at least 200,000 of these papers, skimmed many of them looking for this evidence and there is none. There is a projection of belief on evidence, and nothing else. There is an "assumption in the mind of the follower of this cult" that this "must be real", "has to be real because so many experts and people with credentials have told me so" and that is at the basic foundation of this Religion. I am different. I never believe anyone who tells me anything and take it as if it was real. My father taught me that. I look at the evidence with out the BS of indoctrination having any affect on my mind. Whenever there is "evidence" that can be seen and logically tested in many ways, they never test it by anything but "evodelusionism". That is fraud. Most of those ways to test this "evidence" is not even an indication of or "proof". It destroys it as "for evolution" or "neutralizes" it as proof of anything. They really have no understanding of this evidence, but they always say it "suggests evolution". When it actually suggest many other concepts that have no connection to this theory of evolution. If you would like to discuss this in detail and bring forth your evidence, I would love to see it. You can post up to 6000 characters, and if you need more, I can change to forum to accept it. :) |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by prolescum on Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:38am GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
There doesn't need to be a totally new morphology for natural selection to be true. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do, however, seriously dispute calling a religion or even a cult. You have to remember that most people don't care (which is unfortunate, obviously) so they have vague assumptions about how the world works. This is true of almost any doctrine you can think of; people have what they consider more pressing needs, ie they don't care. Whether they've had a state funded education and been taught evolutionary theory or not. Quote:
That's all very well then. Let's discuss something that evolutionary proponents fundamentally believe. Something specific. Quote:
NB. I don't really want to read a host of links though, I'd rather discuss the points you're making. Quote:
Quote:
I would very much like to discuss it in detail, however, you are the OP, you have to state the details to be discussed or at least which part of your OP you'd like to get into first :) |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Forum Administrator on Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:58am prolescum wrote on Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:38am:
Quote:
Quote:
I do, however, seriously dispute calling a religion or even a cult. You have to remember that most people don't care (which is unfortunate, obviously) so they have vague assumptions about how the world works. This is true of almost any doctrine you can think of; people have what they consider more pressing needs, ie they don't care. Whether they've had a state funded education and been taught evolutionary theory or not. Quote:
That's all very well then. Let's discuss something that evolutionary proponents fundamentally believe. Something specific. Quote:
NB. I don't really want to read a host of links though, I'd rather discuss the points you're making. Quote:
Quote:
I would very much like to discuss it in detail, however, you are the OP, you have to state the details to be discussed or at least which part of your OP you'd like to get into first :) I want you to show me what evidence you find so compelling that you would believe in this belief system? I am patient and have read, most all of the papers on this. If you want to find out the truth that I know then ask. I am prepared to answer any scientist and explain in detail the truth of any "idea" in this belief system. :) |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Forum Administrator on Nov 9th, 2009 at 11:26am
"Are you proposing an alternative? Perhaps you could articulate it in a thread."
This is where people get all screwed up. The need to understand how life got here is the cause of all sorts of religions false sciences and utter nonsense. You need to get rid of that need or desire to know things that we have absolutely no way to understand, except by some messed up beliefs. The need is a weakness that causes delusions and fantasy. If you don't have absolute evidence for anything in your life, and you need to believe, then recognize that it has no validity in reality, until you actually have absolute empirical and obvious evidence, with no interpretation by anyone. This religion of Evodelusionism, is no different than any of the prior mythological religions that have plagued science since the beginning of science. If you believe in this you must be brainwashed, because it has no empirical absolute evidence that can be verified. If it did these discussions would not exist. :) |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Forum Administrator on Nov 9th, 2009 at 12:55pm prolescum wrote on Nov 9th, 2009 at 12:24pm:
Apparently you don't have any answers to the questions I pose. That is sad. :'( I had hoped that you had the capability to get free of this nonsense. I had great hopes for you as a human being that you would be curious enough to just try to get free. It takes courage to face what has happened to you by the life and circumstances that you think or are led to believe to be good. In India they have class systems in which the Adiwassi live in huts and they accept that as a good life. This is the nature of cultural brainwashing and laying down to this sort of thing. I have gotten free of all that HEMG, and if you want to you too can be free of it, but you have to be absolutely honest with yourself. All people afflicted with this religion, need to read all that I present, if anyone wants to be a free thinker and get outside of other people's nonsensical and absolutely not proved beliefs. Once you are brainwashed and you are "one of them", it is difficult to get free. The pressure to conform is very strong on children. The crap on TV just supports this delusional belief system, that has no empirical evidence. Brainwashing is a very powerful thing done to children today. It is also the cause of much suffering in this world. If you think about this for a moment and answer these questions to yourself: (You do not have to answer to me or this forum, just in private.) 1/ What was the process used on you that got you to believe in evolution without ever examining it away from the indoctrination? 2/ Did you believe in evolution before you took even one classroom on this? (This is how children are set up to fail at free thought. TV, parents, friends, and the culture in general.) 3/ Why do you not look outside of the "indoctrinators" propaganda to seek the truth? You must know they all have monetary agendas to perpetuate this. 4/ How much of this is cultural and peer pressure to conform and be accepted by friends and schoolmates and society? 5/ Cults will offer a "pledge of allegiance" to the cult. In this case it is a complete drop of reason and willingness to conform and NOT study this away from the "brainwashers" This is the conformity and a declaration of "I believe in Evolution" in some form, even a test or a classroom presentation is used to confirm your allegiance to the cult. In other religions it is a baptism in front of other people or coming to the "front" and declare your "faith". Do you remember when this happened to you? When you "crossed the line" of being an observer and real scientist to the point of making your declaration of faith and belief? Once you declare belief, you have no credibility as a scientist, when this is a totally unproven theory based on mythology from over 2000 years ago. The mantra "evolution is real" is deep in these brainwashed students. It becomes the "view" of all they see, and so they can only see with "evodelusion glasses". It is amazing that evodelusionists can see this in other people and their beliefs (religions), but believers are too egotistical and lost in belief to even listen. They are controlled by fear and never want to go "there". This site is here to get you to think beyond the indoctrination. To get people outside of that tiny box of indoctrination in which they (indoctrinators) leave out all the important "stuff" and only feed you what causes belief. If you don't have any doubts about evolution then you are not human. The indoctrinators do to you exactly what happened to them. They give you all sorts of reasons why you should never listen to anyone outside the cult. That is how you know it is a cult. They tell you to only listen to fully indoctrinated cult members and to never listen to anyone else. You know in your heart I am right on this, because I see it all the time. Only the great high priests have control over your mind and you are to listen to no one else. From my perspective I feel deep compassion for your condition of mind and soul. You are taught to be controlled by fear and that God is the delusion. That means your life is hopeless in your own eyes. This is the communist agenda by the way that Karl Popper put into science so this crap could go on. The first thing communist do is to eradicate God from the populous, burn all religious books and make you have allegiance to the "mother land" or some other disgusting crap that feeds their pockets. If you don't know this, you do now. Listen carefully to my video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPPafzd4wGI |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Squawk on Nov 21st, 2009 at 12:40pm GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
How was it that Charles Darwin could formulate a theory of evolution without knowing that genetics even existed? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
That's a good thing, since it would falsify neo-darwinian evolution, the idea of gradual changes accumulating. Glad you agree with this. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Could you identify a single instance of a scientific paper on evolution suggesting that a species can jump genus? I contend you are making it up. Further, can you explain to me what characteristics you would look for in a species that would fall between panderichthys and acanthostega would have. Show how this is different to the features of tiktaalik, and then explain how the features that are present in Tiktaalik match the predictions of the scientists who went in search of it, predictions formed from looking at the two species I mentioned. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
You seem to have science confused with religion. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Tell me, do you believe in gravity? Do you have anything other than an opinion on the matter? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Could you link to a single one of these papers and deconstrut it for us, line by line. I presume that you have understood it properly to be able to say it doesn't show that it purports to. It should be noted that 200,000 is 14 papers per day every day for the last 14 years. I further contend that this is not possible to achieve. Your assertions about evolution attest that you understood little of what was presented, but I am prepared to be corrected here. So, pick a paper, link to where it was published, and dissect it line by line or paragraph by paragraph. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Interesting. It would seem that you recognise that faith and religion are inherrantly weak positions since you wish to demote science to such a status. Can you tell me why you feel a need to adhere to religion when you clearly value it so low? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
I pretty much contend precisely the opposite is true, since you demonstrate essentially zero understanding of any of the evidence presented. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
40 years and still on proof. Tell me, do you honestly think proof has any part of science. Do you understand statistical significance and confidence levels? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Examples please, citing both the evidence in question and the other possible conclusions. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Oh I will, but I'd like to see your breakdown of any of the 200,000 papers you supposedly read. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by GoodScienceForYou on Nov 21st, 2009 at 7:47pm wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 12:40pm:
Charles Darwin did not formulate this theory. It is a religious dogma from an ancient culture, well documented. He is not original at all. It is based on a belief in what he thinks he saw in the physical world, but had absolutely no reason to believe it was real, except in fantasy. You cannot call it science ever, because it has never passed as single experiment that could even remotely be called using the scientific method. This "Darwin comment" has nothing to do with the statement. It is called sidestepping the issue. I don't think Darwin has any credibility, because he had no real evidence either. All he really had was the standard questions that we still have no answers to. This pseudo science is so messed up with religious belief that it is totally worthless.Even if any part might be true, most of it is bovine garbage. When I was about 16 years old, I took a look at the evidence they had back then and said to my fellow students: "These morons are believers in things they have no proof of. They are categorizing creatures when they have no idea what they are. They make up bovine garbage names for them that sound important with "Latin" and other such flim flam bovine garbage. They make cartoons of these creatures and put them in science books. It is obvious to any thinking person that you cannot recreate these creatures at all. There is no way to make a photo of any of these "Latin" bovine garbage creatures from fragments of bones that all all distorted to begin with." I concluded that Evolution is not proven and needs a hell of a lot more work. In the 45 years since then, I have been keeping up with all the latest, and with each finding evolution keeps becoming farther and farther away from being true. There are many contradictions and f**ked up opinions in this that it really is disgusting to call it science. It was easy to see that belief is not science, even when I was that young. How many creatures in existence and in the past had a spine, head, four appendages (legs arms, paws, feet), rib cage? Maybe, most! Could it be that any believer could miss-categorize most all of these fossils? That their belief is all they had to work with and still to this day? That the entire "tree of life" is utter bovine garbage? Have you ever really thought about this? These humans are flawed and deeply delusional to think that they have the right to tell me what a creature was, and categorize it with only their eyes and belief as tools? Only a stupid student would accept human opinion as evidence. Without any DNA evidence in these fossils they are negated as any form of evidence. The fossil record is basically just a bunch of curios to be put on the book shelf with NO meaning at all. If you accept this crap as absolute evidence for evolution, you are not a scientist, but a weak person who would think there is any authority over how you think! Never surrender to bovine garbage, that can NEVER be verified. These morons are the people you let control your thinking?? With no DNA in these fossils these weak humans can make up as much fantasy as they want, and nobody is going to stop them, because they are the "experts" in bovine garbage (Evolution). This is the people you put your faith and belief in. These are some of the "high priests" of this religion. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by GoodScienceForYou on Nov 21st, 2009 at 7:52pm GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Quote:
You are a moron. This is exactly what your belief is. You actually believe that some fish became a land creature and that fish are our human common ancestor. That over some immense time this garbage can happen. Now you must prove this absolutely to all the readers. You cannot use any opinions by any expert, nor can you use any evidence that is not physical, obvious and irrefutable. Your turn. Put up your absolute evidence for this taking place. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by GoodScienceForYou on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm
This is just too good to pass by. ::) ;D ;D ;D
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Quote:
How about a billion or so experiments (with proper scientific method) using gravity showing that it always works the same way under the same conditions. This is empirical absolute evidence. Something not found in Evodelusionism. You have been taught out of logic and reason? Even your delusional radiometric dating relies on gravity in the testing. The entire chemical periodic table of the elements is founded on the weight (gravity) of the chemical elements. This is obvious and irrefutable evidence and you have been deluded into thinking this is not real. My goodness! What have these weak humans done to your mind? Even though science has no idea at all what gravity is, it never fails to operate the same way. That is why it is called a law of gravity. It is called the "Law of Gravity"; not theory. These morons have taken a law and downgraded it so that they could elevate the bovine garbage of Evolution. They are trying to use a smoke screen to stop you from realizing what actual physical evidence is. Using gravity, one of the laws of physics we can calculate the exact projectile of a space craft to within a few square meters from a starting position of thousands of miles away from the landing spot. The only variable is wind that has to be adjusted for. Are you really that messed up? Is this "modern" science? Is this the reason why science is so messed up and retarded now after it has been taken over by morons? The word scientist has been turned into "voodoo priest". Now answer the original question and get real? |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Squawk on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 3:28am
45 years and you still think any aspect of science involves proof. Once again, as in many other threads, I ask you to present a single one of the papers you claim to have read, cited properly, and break it down to show that
1. You understand it 2. You can pick holes in it. Until you do I contend that you are simply lying about your research. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Squawk on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 3:41am GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Oh I agree. Its amusing, and extremely revealing GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 9:12pm:
Quote:
How about a billion or so experiments (with proper scientific method) using gravity showing that it always works the same way under the same conditions. This is empirical absolute evidence. Something not found in Evodelusionism. [/quote] You had better go and tell that to all the people working on quantum mechanics who will tell you that all working theories on gravity break down on the quantum level. Quantum mechanics works, it makes predictions accurate to 15 decimal places. Relativity works, it makes predictions of equal accuracy. It is not possible for both to be correct since they contradict one another at a singularity. So, absolute evidence? No, yet again a demonstration that you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to science. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Could you tell me which aspect of radiometric dating relies upon gravity? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Not even close. You need to look into the four fundamental forces, in particular the strong weak and electromagnetic forces. Gravity is inconsequential at such small scales and has nothing to do with particles of this size. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
It would seem I have just refuted it. Oh noes. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Ahh, 40 years (or is it 45 years) of study and you are not aware of the nature of a scientific law. Tell me, what happened to Newtons laws when Einstein showed them to be inaccurate? Actually, he showed them to be a special case of general relativity. Einsteins laws of gravity superceded Newtons, and in time they too will likely be superceded. It would be enormously arrogant for us to claim that present understanding is infalliable. Laws can and do change. I've just provided you with a clear cut example, care for more? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
So we can add a lack of understanding of basic science terms to your 45 years of research then? You don't understand that laws are actually of less merit than theories in science? That theories explain? Very revealing. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Downgraded a law to what? You do realise that theory is the ultimate accolade in science, the result of a well tested hypothesis, and nothing to do with law, not even in the same hierachy? You realise that, don't you? DON'T YOU? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Better go and tell that the the scientists who are currently trying to understand why certain space craft are a few hundred meteres off course for no apparent reason. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
You had better display a basic level of understanding of science, in particular any notion of what a scientific theory is and how it is different to a law, before you attempt to label as morons those who do understand these terms. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Again, a recognition that religion is an inherantly weak position. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 8:55pm:
Get real? Original question, which was that, the one on absolute evidence? Did you not read my bit on speciation? |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Squawk on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 3:52am GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 7:52pm:
Err, I tell you that that is not what I believe, and you tell me it is what I believe and then call me a moron for believing it. Very revealing, again. So what we can see hear is that when you are told what a person believes, and you don't like that position because it doesn't give you something to argue against, you instead erect a straw man of that persons belief and then proceed to attack the straw man rather than the person actual position. Which of us does that make the moron? I'd suggest it's the one erecting and then attacking the straw man. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 7:52pm:
Since you refer to tetrapod evolution (the evolution, over a period of 10's of millions of years, of the first creatures that walked on land) I reiterate my question from the other thread. Namely, what characteristics would you expect to find in a species that was transitional between acanthostega and panderichthys. Then tell me how these features are different to those observed in Tiktaalik, since real scientists made the prediction of Tiktaalik before it was discovered, said what characteristics it would have, where in the world it would be located, and in which level of strata it would occur. Now, clearly you must have done a lot of research on tetrapod evolution to be able to make such sweeping statements. So, could you tell me what features the scientists overlooked? Which aspect of the transition did they get wrong? What features does Tiktaalik not possess that it should have? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 7:52pm:
Why? When the readers, yourself mainly, seem to have no clue what proof is and that it has no part of science I see no point in even attempting to do so. I merely argue here to show your arguments for the hubris and waffle that they are, and to demonstrate that you have not done the research you claim to have since you remain ignorant of basic scientific principles. You can prove me wrong on this, I even gave you a method. Go find any scientific paper from the last 30 years, published in a recognised scientific journal, and show how it matches your claims of logical fallacy and religious indoctrination. I contend that you are lying about it and that you won't be able to do the above. You can show me wrong in an instant, by doing it. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 7:52pm:
As has been asked in another thread, what is absolute evidence? I made notes on gravity above. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Squawk on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 3:59am
Oh, and I didn't bother dissecting your "Darwin wasn't original" bit, because it was so amusing. Best to leave it as it.
However, I will pick up on one point. You think most creatures that have lived have been vertebrates? Very interesting. Even a quick look at wikipedia shows this up for the nonsense that it is. 58,000 species of vertebrate have been described thus far (give or take). Contrast this with the million or so insects that have been described, and the current thinking that approximately 90% of all life on earth is insect, and we note that, once again, 45 years of research that you have done has left you with an empty head. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by GoodScienceForYou on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:09pm wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 3:59am:
========================== GoodScience said" I was using that as an example to make you wake up from you belief in these delusional fools. You are not much of a free thinker and I have a hard time with people who are so narrow minded. Sorry, I will spell it out better for you next time and include this idea that there are many creatures without a spine that have no similar genetics at all but these jerks will categorize them anyway to fit their unfounded on any scientific methodology other than an HEMG belief on this BS "tree of life". |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Squawk on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:18pm GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:09pm:
So let me get this straight. In order to convince me that you are correct, you post innaccurate information? Your method of teaching is to make stuff up? How can I hope to learn anything from someone who openly admits to making stuff up? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:09pm:
You mean those of us who like accuracy and who point out mistakes when we see them? That kind of free thinking? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:09pm:
Well you are going to have to address this when you try to answer my challenge to you on comparative anatomy. We note that the genetics of trees, to think of a particularly distant example, are around 50% similar to our own, and we note that as animals get more "human like" based on comparative anatomy, so their genetics get more human like. But as I say, you will have to address that when you cover convergent phlogenies. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by GoodScienceForYou on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:22pm
Any person who has a brain could figure this out without me explaining it to you.
"The obvious is not obvious until it is obvious." IF you are buried in narrow minded belief, you are not capable of seeing the obvious. It is a demonstration of how you can't think outside the box. I feel sad for you, because I am not like that. I keep belief far from my mind, as far as is possible in order to remain highly intelligent and above all forms of human folly. It is hard for me to understand your conditioning of thinking. But I am trying, because I really want to help you to get free of delusional beliefs that have no scientific basis other than a cult like belief. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by Squawk on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:37pm
Have you ever heard of Dunning-Kruger?
Do you think you could address any points I make rather than waxing about delusion, praising your own intelligence and generally waffling. Why not let your posts show your intelligence or lack of rather than constantly asserting to be in possesion of a great intelligence whilst failing to answer the basic questions posed. You are yet to post a critique of a single one of the 200,000 papers you claim to have read, despite repeated prompting. |
Title: Re: For Evolution to be true.............. Post by GoodScienceForYou on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 3:56pm wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 1:37pm:
Have you ever heard of paranoid delusions? How about group hysteria? How about human emotion mental garbage? Keep your pshycho babble to yourself, you are the one I had to ban. You can't stay on topic, have terrible manners, and are rude nasty and vulgar. You side step every direct question, because you know you can't answer. I answered all your questions but you were not intelligent enough to understand the answer. There is no evidence that can be called "opinion" based on belief. It does not exist. Yet that is what you continually produce. You don't seem capable of understanding anything that is obvious about your religion. That is because you are one of the "high priests" and the protector of your beliefs. I teach you that crap opinions based on belief are not evidence and that is all you have produced. You make these dumb ass conclusions that if something happens one time, it means that all the universe came from a tiny creature that evolved into humans and everything. How can you take this dribble seriously? You never listen to any of the great knowledge I have to share, because you seem top be a know it all and you don't know much. To me you are a baby, lost in your beliefs and ego. Evodelusionism is a religion that is supported by belief and opinions based on that belief. It has no evidence that is conclusive at all. And when you say crap like some lizard had a new stomach over some long time then you project that out to millions of fantasy years, you forget one thing. The physical evidence only shows extinction and no trail of any evolution in the physical world. It does not exist. You are living in a delusional fantasy. And you deserve an intellectual "spanking" for your disrespect of the facts and the evidence and all the real scientist who came before you. You degrade all of them with this crap belief that has no evidence. Your crap beliefs degrade you, and all those you touch with this disgusting garbage of your religion. ;D |
GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.4! YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved. |