http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/05_o_tugenensis.html

It is virtually impossible for this to happen, because no hominid should ever be walking upright according to "Evodelusion Sciecne'.

When this was first discovered the "scientits" decided it was a scam, and accused the finders of fraudulent dating method, because "it screws up the whole timeline of hominids"

They never thought for even one second that the dating methods are completely false and based on nothing but assumptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ

Wrong wrong wrong. You must have lots of practice because you are a virtuoso at wrong.

You're wrong. I don't care how old you are or how young you were when you had any of your revelations or realizations. You are totally wrong about evolution. And when we explain even the most basic parts if it to you you are willfully and obtusely ignorant and stubborn.

You have NOT sufficiently discredited descent with modification. You have NOT sufficiently discredited selection.

You type and type and type and have absolutely nothing interesting or constructive to say.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 10:37am:

Wrong wrong wrong. You must have lots of practice because you are a virtuoso at wrong. You're wrong. I don't care how old you are or how young you were when you had any of your revelations or realizations. You are totally wrong about evolution. And when we explain even the most basic parts if it to you you are willfully and obtusely ignorant and stubborn. You have NOT sufficiently discredited descent with modification. You have NOT sufficiently discredited selection. You type and type and type and have absolutely nothing interesting or constructive to say.

Wake the up!  Go read it over and over until you stop believing in delusional bovine garbage.

You want life to be interesting, get free and see how cool life really is.  Having a bunch of morons own your mind is not cool.  As soon as you declare belief, you are screwed.

You screwed yourself, by allow others to control your thinking.

Prove it!

You have NOT sufficiently discredited descent with modification. You have NOT sufficiently discredited selection.

The fact that creatures breed, and have mating rituals in order to have stronger offspring, has nothing in common with magical processes and mystical causes. 

The fact that environmental events cause changes to creatures in order to survive as the same creatures, is not proof of any evolution into a new species, or new genus.

You cannot project your friggin beliefs on reality.  You need to just look and see what is right in front of your nose and stop believing in mystical bovine garbage.

All that is really shown in the fossil record is extinction when they can no longer survive as that species. Go look!

The ones around today have been here as the same creatures for millions upon millions of years as the same creatures. Don't you know this? The only way for you to not know this is by indoctrination and being kept in an "intellectual cage" like a trapped animal.

This is actual physical evidence that refutes this dumb ass belief in magical evolutionary processes, and mystical creatures that never existed.

Now, if you want to go over all these details with me, I can do it for you.  I can get you free of every unscientific nonsense they have shoved in your brain.

You are not a good guardian over your intellect.  You accept without ever thinking. 

List of fallacies in your argument:
"survive as the same creatures"
"have stronger offspring"
"environmental events cause changes to creatures"
"All that is really shown in the fossil record is extinction"
"This is actual physical evidence that refutes this dumb ass belief in magical evolutionary processes, and mystical creatures that never existed."
Stacks of fallacies are not evidence. They are argument. Which is all in your head until you can point at something real. Sorry.

"Now, if you want to go over all these details with me, I can do it for you."

I want to go over descent with modification. Does it happen or not? Science says it does.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 11:00am:

List of fallacies in your argument: "survive as the same creatures" "have stronger offspring" "environmental events cause changes to creatures" "All that is really shown in the fossil record is extinction" "This is actual physical evidence that refutes this dumb ass belief in magical evolutionary processes, and mystical creatures that never existed." Stacks of fallacies are not evidence. They are argument. Which is all in your head until you can point at something real. Sorry. "Now, if you want to go over all these details with me, I can do it for you." I want to go over descent with modification. Does it happen or not? Science says it does.

You are not capable of understanding science.  You are brainwashed and so confused that it is just a sin what has happened to you.
You are a victim of child abuse, just as your teachers are victims and their teachers.

Science was turned into a religion in order to force political and religious ideas on science. The results is this crap.

Yes. I'm brainwashed. lal al alalalla.a

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 11:09am:

Yes. I'm brainwashed. lal al alalalla.a

Most victims will not see themselves as victims when there are so many victims around them who support their delusions.

I feel sorry for you.  I wish you only the best that life can give you.  I also know that you know deep within you there are so many doubts.  You need to go with those doubts and start to get clear of this crap religion.

I'm a brainwashed victim of the evil evoldelusion scientists that are tricking me to believing living things change slowly over time. THE HORROR! So evil. So evil i would say it's the frooooits of the Deviieeell!

Teach me! Teach me the good stuff!

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 11:15am:

I'm a brainwashed victim of the evil evoldelusion scientists that are tricking me to believing living things change slowly over time. THE HORROR! So evil. So evil i would say it's the frooooits of the Deviieeell! Teach me! Teach me the good stuff!

Ignorance is not necessarily evil. But it normally has disastrous results. When you operate out of ignorance and put the blame on others, for your ignorance ,you are not taking responsibility for what you allow in your mind.

On every piece of evidence these brainwashed people impose on you, you need to stop the idea that they know what the heck they are talking about because of their position. That is your first mistake. It is the primary mistake of all humans to accept authority because of the "carrots" they put in front of you.  If getting a PHD is more important than the truth, you will accept all sorts of bovine garbage from these fools.

If you love your professor is not a reason to believe them.  It is only when they present absolute evidence for their "slogans"or "axioms" as you call them, do you allow any belief.  Just because a million morons believe in something is not proof that you should ever believe them.

When you analyze how you got your dumb ass beliefs, you will see a lot of that "authority" and your weakness and needs got in the way of your BS filter.  So you accept logical fallacies in order to survive in your situation.  This is the disgusting crap that goes on in all societies.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 8^th, 2009 at 8:00am:

So I decided to watch that video and I have a few critiques. You might need to remove it. First, you address the rarity of fossils. Well, lets look at it. The claim is that fossils are rare. You dispute it, and read out a quote from a paleontologist who says there are hundreds of millions of fossils in cases in museums.

"How complete is the fossil record? Michael Denton, a medical doctor and biological researcher, writes that "when estimates are made of the percentage of [now-] living forms found as fossils, the percentage turns out to be surprisingly high, suggesting that the fossil record may not be as bad as is often maintained" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 189).

He explains that "of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates [mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians] 261 or 79.1 percent have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8 percent" (Denton, p. 189)."

Basically this shows that fossilization is not rare.  And that with nearly 88% of the non birds vertebrates, we should see these transitional fossils, but we don't. They are the same as they are today in some cases 125 million years mosquito in amber, 70 million years for the opossum with no morphological changes in to a new genus. 50 million for several species including the crocodile.  If 50 million years is not enough time with enough "pressure" to change, then what is? 


Basically, there is no evidence for any evolution at all in the fossil record.  Most of it is messed up by belief and forced categorizing with no DNA.


You cannot trust anyone who makes up crap and calls it science.  Since the who fossil record and the "tree of life" is bovine garbage made up fantasy, with no DNA to link old peices of rocks with no organic matter in them, it is against the "rules" of science for these fools to call it evidence or to make any sort of organized chart of these unknown creatures.

Just looking and comparing is not a testable for of science. Without any means to use the "scientific method" on those rock fossils, you have to discard the whole thing as absolute evidence. 

What part of "Not Proven, Don't Believe" is so difficult for you?  As soon as you believe in things that you can't understand, you are religious and not rational.

I did not say "might understand" or "could understand".  I said it is impossible for you to know exactly what any fossil was without scientific evidence that is testable and repeatable.

This makes all believers in Evodelusionism, religious mystical nut jobs who's only understanding comes from brainwashing into a cult religion.

Quote:

Basically this shows that fossilization is not rare.

Define "rare".

How many of the last 1 billion people to die do you think will someday be fossils? What about the last 1 billion pigeons? The last 1 billion trout?

I've just address that post in another topic, in particular the reference to families which by your own defintiion of genus cannot exist. But the question still stands, define rare.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 11:12am:

I've just address that post in another topic, in particular the reference to families which by your own defintiion of genus cannot exist. But the question still stands, define rare.

Did you even read the post?
Nearly 90% of the non bird fossils of creatures now living is not rare.
If we have 90% of the creatures now living in this quest to dig up fossils for 150 years, then that would indicate that fossils are not nearly as rare as evodelusionsists would like them to be.

This idea that "somehow" the evidence must have been destroyed of all the "transitional" fossils.  Are you really that lost in your belief?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM-BYlYK3hk

Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that humans evolved from fish. Such evolutionary ideas were common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome.

---

glowingape wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 7:28pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:22pm: Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that humans evolved from fish. Such evolutionary ideas were common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome. So... When did they pass a law, that hypothesis and scientific theories are outdated? Did I missed some peer-reviews paper on this one?

The point is that Darwin plagiarized from an ancient religious view of pagans.

That this comes from no science at all, but from philosophy and religion.

Absolute evdience and proof is never outdated.

Where is your absolute evidence for you religious beliefs in magical and mystical causes?
Where is you proof that fish got out of the water and walked on land? 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 7:34pm:

glowingape wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:28pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:22pm: Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that humans evolved from fish. Such evolutionary ideas were common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome. So... When did they pass a law, that hypothesis and scientific theories are outdated? Did I missed some peer-reviews paper on this one? The point is that Darwin plagiarized from an ancient religious view of pagans. That this comes from no science at all, but from philosophy and religion.

Quote:

From Wikipedia Anaximander speculated about the beginnings and origin of animal life. Taking into account the existence of fossils, he claimed that animals sprang out of the sea long ago. The first animals were born trapped in a spiny bark, but as they got older, the bark would dry up and break.[33] As the early humidity evaporated, dry land emerged and, in time, humankind had to adapt. The 3rd century Roman writer Censorinus reports:     Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves.[34] Anaximander put forward the idea that humans had to spend part of this transition inside the mouths of big fish to protect themselves from the Earth's climate until they could come out in open air and lose their scales.[35] He thought that, considering humans' extended infancy, we could not have survived in the primeval world in the same manner we do presently. Even though he had no theory of natural selection, some people consider him as evolution's most ancient proponent. The theory of an aquatic descent of man was re-conceived centuries later as the aquatic ape hypothesis. These pre-Darwinian concepts may seem strange, considering modern knowledge and scientific methods, because they present complete explanations of the universe while using bold and hard-to-demonstrate hypotheses. However, they illustrate the beginning of a phenomenon sometimes called the "Greek miracle": men try to explain the nature of the world, not with the aid of myths or religion, but with material principles. This is the very principle of scientific thought, which was later advanced further by improved research methods.

Quote:

Absolute evdience and proof is never outdated. Where is your absolute evidence for you religious beliefs in magical and mystical causes? Where is you proof that fish got out of the water and walked on land?

At this time I'd suggest you to go read my and oh_noes' feedback, because you were told, that... Screw it. Go read it...

Where is your absolute proof of evolution; no opinions allowed?

Anaximander sounds just as insane as any pseudo scientists do who believe in Evolution.

Because there is no absolute evidence for evolution, it shows how weak people are to believe things with no evidence.