The need to know where life comes from is the cause of all sorts of delusions, religions, gods, and false sciences that think they have the answers. 

It is the cause of a lot of suffering and pain, caused by factions who say this is truth, no that is truth you weak human, I will kill you; infidel, Satan worshipper! and such. With evodelusionists I get a lot of death threats, and death wishes, so that is a nice religion as well. 

The answer is that there is no need for an alternative theory if the one you have is no frigging good and leads to nowhere as the theory of evolution. 

If you are so weak as to accept logical fallacies as evidence, for your need to believe, then you are not honest with yourself.  The first thing you need to learn is absolute honesty with yourself. Then you can be honest with all and see the nature of yours and other’s delusions. 

In order to find the truth, you stop believing in things that are lacking in absolute evidence that requires no interpretation. If you have to have some believer interpret the truth, then you are in real trouble, because belief is the problem.  Believers have no credibility, because they live in fantasy of belief based on nothing but projection of belief all around them.

When you cannot test for DNA, all you have is faith and belief to put on the fossils. You can look and look and make it up as you go. You have no way to test if any of those creatures are even in the same genetic family.
These minor adaptation in the genome are not evolution but so that these creatures can SURVIVE AS THE SAME CREATURES.
If you actually look at the fossil record you can see this sometimes. Horse is good example.
As soon as the environment changes too much they go extinct.

Go listen to my videos. It is clear about falsification. It is only in "science" to perpetuate beliefs as far as I can tell.
If you can't understand about proving rather than disproving you are an idiot.

watch?v=W_5CJzKB9b4

watch?v=4--Frypeg00

Any geneticist can easily see by looking at the genome of all the primates and humans with all the ERV’s  that there is a logical genetic connection between them all. The problem is what is this connection?  Well there is no absolutely  proven answer, because no body was there to see how all these ERV insertion points took place.

Their hypothesis is that there was a common ape like ancestor that was the great ape who produced all the primates and human. The fact that Chimps are so closely related genetically has far more plausible ways to examine this ERV, Chromosome, and DNA evidence that fits far better.  It is because of the extremely tight similarity between humans and Chimps that gives rise to a much more plausible situation.

Being so close. I mean 94.5 percent the same DNA and 48 chromosomes with the #2 of the human looking exactly like the two chromosomes of the Chimp are fused in the human.  That is way to close for even a common ancestor. That is what makes it much more plausible of direct interbreeding with humans and primates.

If your religion produces this. watch?v=u9gr65wKNXY While at the same time making the drug companies rich and producing drugs that maim, destroy organs, and cause suicide from psychotropic drugs, then you need a new religion.


1/2 Listen; (Like you ever listen HA!)
There is absolutely ZERO OBJECTIVE AND ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE of any creature ever breaking into a new genus. That means they cannot break there genetic coding and survive as any viable species.
You go prove me wrong. You can't use any opinions on fossils that have no clean DNA.
Without physical evidence, not tainted by believers, with no way to even know what they are examining, except by their stupid beliefs, there is no evolution from no life to life.
| Remove
2/2 This idea that a creature magically will "Mutate" and become a totally new genetic lineage is just a fantasy.
You go look at all the obvious creatures and their "family" that have appeared to "evolve",( really adapt and change), they all have a genetic lineage that is unbroken. The horse is a perfect example, elephant, camel. The creatures these idiots think they evolved from simply are an extinct fantasy and can never be examined. You cannot use any assumptions in real science.

My hypothesis is that people stop needing to believe so bad that they are willing to accept bovine garbage. Life is a gift, and not some pile of crap beliefs. Stop allowing other people's crap beliefs to control your life.
If there is no absolute evidence then don't believe these weak humans. Don’t succumb to group think and forced beliefs because you are too weak to think for yourself and you just want to be "accepted". I have never fallen for that crap.

Why are you talking about the origin of life then ranting about evolution?

He doesn't know they're different pursuits of explanation. I can't believe how much time I've wasted here. If he had been preaching from a park bench I would have walked by and never stopped.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 3:37pm:

He doesn't know they're different pursuits of explanation. I can't believe how much time I've wasted here. If he had been preaching from a park bench I would have walked by and never stopped.

Every Evodelusionist, cult member, eventually thinks life came from nothing.
It is part of where this disgusting crap leads you.

This movie is based on the beliefs of Evodelusionists, exactly and to the letter of the belief.  I think it speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:28pm:

Every Evodelusionist, cult member, eventually thinks life came from nothing. It is part of where this disgusting crap leads you.

Every evolutionists thinks life came from nothing? The people who deal with what evolution really talks about? Like explanation of diversity of life here? Because how the universe came about is a subject of COSMOLOGY, and how life came about is ABIOGENESIS.

Most of the evodelusionsist that I know, and that is a large number over 1000 people are convinced that life is some accidnet cause by some random events.

There is absolutely no evidence for this, but if you believe in the religion of Evodelusionism, you will eventually start to believe there is no God and that this is a crappy accident.

Only a moron would think that something so incomprehensible and not understandable is an accident, so Evodelusionists are morons as far as I am concerned. They are to be ridiculed for their extreme ignorance.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 12:19am:

Most of the evodelusionsist that I know, and that is a large number over 1000 people are convinced that life is some accidnet cause by some random events. There is absolutely no evidence for this, but if you believe in the religion of Evodelusionism, you will eventually start to believe there is no God and that this is a crappy accident. Only a moron would think that something so incomprehensible and not understandable is an accident, so Evodelusionists are morons as far as I am concerned. They are to be ridiculed for their extreme ignorance.

Sky daddy vs an understood process :D

Your religious convictions are clear for all to see, regardless of your constant denials

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 12:19am:

Most of the evodelusionsist that I know, and that is a large number over 1000 people are convinced that life is some accidnet cause by some random events.

So you know a lot of stupid people. Got it.


Quote:

There is absolutely no evidence for this, but if you believe in the religion of Evodelusionism, you will eventually start to believe there is no God and that this is a crappy accident.

Well... At least now I understand what this forum is all about. To convince people that there is a supernatural deity, that poofed out out of nothing via some spell and whatever we can prove within science is pure nonsense.


Quote:

Only a moron would think that something so incomprehensible and not understandable is an accident, so Evodelusionists are morons as far as I am concerned. They are to be ridiculed for their extreme ignorance.

Congratulations! You've just described your own "magical thinking" to us. I wonder, how you'll manage to convince anyone from now on, that "you have no religion", and "you believe only absolute evidence".

Congratulations for destroying all your points. But I wonder; Why did you bothered to make a forum, since you could easily join one of the hundreds out there and share your nonsense "science".

glowingape wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 1:52am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 12:19am: Most of the evodelusionsist that I know, and that is a large number over 1000 people are convinced that life is some accidnet cause by some random events. So you know a lot of stupid people. Got it. Quote: There is absolutely no evidence for this, but if you believe in the religion of Evodelusionism, you will eventually start to believe there is no God and that this is a crappy accident. Well... At least now I understand what this forum is all about. To convince people that there is a supernatural deity, that poofed out out of nothing via some spell and whatever we can prove within science is pure nonsense. [quote]Only a moron would think that something so incomprehensible and not understandable is an accident, so Evodelusionists are morons as far as I am concerned. They are to be ridiculed for their extreme ignorance.

Congratulations! You've just described your own "magical thinking" to us. I wonder, how you'll manage to convince anyone from now on, that "you have no religion", and "you believe only absolute evidence".

Congratulations for destroying all your points. But I wonder; Why did you bothered to make a forum, since you could easily join one of the hundreds out there and share your nonsense "science".[/quote]


No I did not.  I know that everything in this universe is logical and reasonable.  I know that people's concepts of God is just that. Concepts of God.

Just like you approach science from a really stupid angle, most people seem to approach the Truth in the same way. with magical thinking.

The Truth of God is in absolute evidence that is not tainted by stupid people's beliefs.  They are so wrapped up, just like you, in their concepts of God, that they can't see the obvious Truth, right in front and inside of them.

Whatever Truth in science there is, is God's truth not yours not mine.

Until you can know the truth, then stop imposing your nonsense beliefs on it.

All of you.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:03am:

The Truth of God is in absolute evidence that is not tainted by stupid people's beliefs.  They are so wrapped up, just like you, in their concepts of God, that they can't see the obvious Truth, right in front and inside of them. Whatever Truth in science there is, is God's truth not yours not mine.

Amen.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:03am:

glowingape wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 1:52am: Congratulations! You've just described your own "magical thinking" to us. I wonder, how you'll manage to convince anyone from now on, that "you have no religion", and "you believe only absolute evidence". Congratulations for destroying all your points. But I wonder; Why did you bothered to make a forum, since you could easily join one of the hundreds out there and share your nonsense "science". No I did not.

Of course you did. And you've confirmed everything in the following statements:

Quote:

I know that people's concepts of God is just that. Concepts of God. The Truth of God is in absolute evidence that is not tainted by stupid people's beliefs.  They are so wrapped up, just like you, in their concepts of God, that they can't see the obvious Truth, right in front and inside of them. Whatever Truth in science there is, is God's truth not yours not mine.

Now can you please point out, which part says, that you're not religious?

glowingape wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 10:32am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 8:03am: glowingape wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 1:52am: Congratulations! You've just described your own "magical thinking" to us. I wonder, how you'll manage to convince anyone from now on, that "you have no religion", and "you believe only absolute evidence". Congratulations for destroying all your points. But I wonder; Why did you bothered to make a forum, since you could easily join one of the hundreds out there and share your nonsense "science". No I did not. Of course you did. And you've confirmed everything in the following statements: Quote: I know that people's concepts of God is just that. Concepts of God. The Truth of God is in absolute evidence that is not tainted by stupid people's beliefs.  They are so wrapped up, just like you, in their concepts of God, that they can't see the obvious Truth, right in front and inside of them. Whatever Truth in science there is, is God's truth not yours not mine. Now can you please point out, which part says, that you're not religious?

Seekers of the truth are not concerned with religious beliefs.
The Truth = God.  If you are not seeking the truth, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your dumb ass beliefs.

Seek only what is absolutely obvious and not part of your brainwashing from you life.  You choose ignorance, because I certainly did not choose that path of following stupid weak feeble minded humans.  Your religion is following stupid people and thinking you have knowledge. This is called the "knowledge of bondage to ignorance".  Humans are the problem, because of how fearful and lost in bovine garbage their lives are. They build little boxes of faith and belief to ward off fears: the definition of religion.
Get rid of all beliefs that you have no evidence on and you will start to get free.  Humans live in a pile of delusional bovine garbage, and you and I are no different, except for the levels of bovine garbage I have removed in my 61 years of seeking only the truth of the matter and absolute evidence.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 11:38pm:

Seekers of the truth are not concerned with religious beliefs. The Truth = God.  If you are not seeking the truth, then you are only seeking to perpetuate your dumb ass beliefs.

Like Truth = God. You are only seeking to perpetuate your dumb-arsed beliefs.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 11:38pm:

Seekers of the truth are not concerned with religious beliefs.

No, they aren't. If there is a megalomaniacal jealous deity that throw people in hell, if you just think that he doesn't exists, that would make practically no difference in scientific community whatsoever. Well, asides of the fact that we should do whatever "it" says...


Quote:

The Truth = God.

The truth has nothing to do with God. The "truth" may or may not be connected to God. Altho I find it interesting, that you equate a magical being, that poofs stuff out of nothing with something like "truth". It's even funnier, that you are bringing it up, since you don't believe in it? If you don't believe in it, how can you bring it up?

There rest is just raving garbage, which I think it's something completely irrelevant for this topic.

glowingape wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 12:29pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 19th, 2009 at 11:38pm: Seekers of the truth are not concerned with religious beliefs. No, they aren't. If there is a megalomaniacal jealous deity that throw people in hell, if you just think that he doesn't exists, that would make practically no difference in scientific community whatsoever. Well, asides of the fact that we should do whatever "it" says... Quote: The Truth = God. The truth has nothing to do with God. The "truth" may or may not be connected to God. Altho I find it interesting, that you equate a magical being, that poofs stuff out of nothing with something like "truth". It's even funnier, that you are bringing it up, since you don't believe in it? If you don't believe in it, how can you bring it up? There rest is just raving garbage, which I think it's something completely irrelevant for this topic.

There is no magical being, sitting on a throne.  God is all that exists.  You are too stupid to see that. The energy behind life comes from God. The laws of science come from God. Truth = God. 

In India the root of the term ignorance means your lack of awareness of God or the Truth.  Ignorance means no awareness of God.  Intelligence is the absolute awareness of God.  You are a moron.

The truth is that you are consciousness. That consciousness comes from God. The life within you that illuminates your mind can only come from God. Judd people are not able to see that.  They are "tamasic", or extremely dense and stupid.  You choose to be stupid and dense. There is nobody else to blame for you stupidity, just you.

God is consciousness. God is Truth. If you are not aware of the obvious, then you are f**ked and will never find peace.

There is no Hell. It does not exist.  If you read the Bible, which I have read and you have not, hell does not exist in the bible. In ancient times there was a constant fire pit going used to burn things called Gehenna, where they burned trash like dead bodies and trash. It simply means that  you choose death and not to live any further. Your individuality is destroyed forever, because that is what you choose and what you believe with all your mind, emotions and totally immersed in that f**ked up delusion. 

There is no eternal hell, only eternal death for those who cannot exist in the conditions that fit their consciousness.

You are so stupid that you will most likely be destroyed and never allowed to live again, because that is what you want.
You want to be destroyed.  I choose life.

You create your life based on the condition of your consciousness.  If you believe in death as nothing and not ever being alive; then that is what you get.  Belief is the cause of death.  You can only die if you absolutely believe in it.  That "apple" is the apple of belief and being totally absorbed deeply in delusion.
Try putting your mind around that one.  You choose death, not life. You want death. You desire death. You desire to stop the pain because you live in mental anguish of total ignorance of God.
Awareness of God, is bliss, joy, peace and love. These are extremely foreign to you, because you are a delusional hateful weak human, as is apparent by your posting on here. You would not make a pimple on a scientists ass.

Without the awareness of the consciousness behind this existence you are a f**king moron.

The cause of suffering is from not knowing God. That means you live in suffering and mental garbage.  If you want to be free, then choose freedom, instead of death, choose life.

The best comparison is you life is like constantly smashing your thumb with a hammer.  You are so stupid that you don't  realize that you are the one using the hammer on your thumb. When you stop hitting yourself with your f**ked up beliefs then the pain stops.

You are basically f**ked and you f**ked yourself ,by your f**ked up beliefs.

In this world there is the Truth and there is bovine garbage. There is nothing in between.

You choose to follow f**ked up humans as your God, and so you suffer because of it.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 9:43pm:

There is no magical being, sitting on a throne.  God is all that exists.  You are too stupid to see that. The energy behind life comes from God. The laws of science come from God. Truth = God.

How many times do you need to erect this "God" character to prove, that you don't believe in it?

glowingape wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 1:02am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 20th, 2009 at 9:43pm: There is no magical being, sitting on a throne.  God is all that exists.  You are too stupid to see that. The energy behind life comes from God. The laws of science come from God. Truth = God.  How many times do you need to erect this "God" character to prove, that you don't believe in it?

There is no God character, that is your belief.  God is way beyond your feeble mind. The truth is way beyond your feeble mind. The mind is the problem that interferes with the truth.  Your religion of mystical causes and magical processes has no merit at all.  It is based on pure bovine garbage.
You know almost nothing of science.   People like you are the cause of a lot of suffering in this world.  You create hate and factions.  You do nothing positive for humanity with this disgusting religion of yours.  Your religion is pretty much the worst cult crap I have ever studied.  Here is your religion for you to read about.

A science based on slogans is not science. 
A science not based on using the scientific method is not science.
A science that has no real evidence is a religion.
A science that debases the established sciences by avoiding the existing laws of science is not science.
A science that has only partial truths destroys the clarity of the partial truths, by religious beliefs.
A science that pollutes established definitions of scientific terms to match a belief is just garbage.
A science that forces belief on evidence and never looks at any other plausibilities is not science.
A science that modifies evidence to match the belief is not science.
A science that fills in huge gaps in the evidence with belief is not science.
A science that uses magical processes and mystical creatures that have never been shown to exist is not science.

There is no need to fill in the blanks on things you know nothing about by using beliefs. This is a human weakness.

Instead of pushing this nonsense of genetic instability and random nonsense. Why not use what is real, what you can test and forget the crap of evodelusionism?

Genetics used to be a real science, until this crap has polluted it with garbage beliefs and no evidence to back it.

If you actually think and believe this.

1/ The entire world full of creatures and plant life, came from tiny single cell organisms that started all by themselves.
2/ These tiny single cell "creatures" started growing and by some random events, became extremely complicated, and became the cells and genetic structures of marine life.
3/ Marine life, fish, decided to get out of the water and walk on land, for no apparent reason, grew four legs, lungs, and a totally new digestive system to eat food on land that they never ate before.
4/ Eventually these fish became reptiles.
5/ These reptiles became mammals and birds.
6/ Over some immense time all the creatures "evolved" including the amazingly complex humans.
7/ Bacteria evolves into new creatures.
8/ This belief proves beyond all doubts that there is not God a proves that all religions are wrong, except for your religion of Evodelusionism.


I know for a fact that 1 through 8 is utter nonsense with absolutely no evidence showing any of this has taken place, except in the minds of people like you.
And the only way this can happen to you is by brainwashing with "slogans" from people who believe this nonsense.
The slogans burn their way into your brain until you think it is real.  This is how all religions start out in a child.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 8:49am:

glowingape wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 1:02am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 20th, 2009 at 9:43pm: There is no magical being, sitting on a throne.  God is all that exists.  You are too stupid to see that. The energy behind life comes from God. The laws of science come from God. Truth = God.  How many times do you need to erect this "God" character to prove, that you don't believe in it? There is no God character, that is your belief.  God is way beyond your feeble mind.

*random drumbeats*
Yep. You've stated at least 20 times, that you don't believe in God. At least. But you keep saying in the very same breath, that the "God" exists. Form doesn't matter.

Maybe one should actually look into the dictionary what the word "lying" means. Because the statement above is exactly that.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 8:49am:

If you actually think and believe this.

And why do you keep repeating something, that was already refuted multiple times? Should I *REALLY* answer something that was already answered at least 5 times?

glowingape wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 9:46am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 8:49am: If you actually think and believe this. And why do you keep repeating something, that was already refuted multiple times? Should I *REALLY* answer something that was already answered at least 5 times?

So you renounce the Theory of Evolution then?

After 40 years of looking at this crap and seeing that it leads nowhere, has no scientific basis, and is not supported with anything but projection of religious beliefs; it is clear that it is a religion with magical causes and mystical events that have never taken place.
Only really weak and feeble people would believe such crap.

In the future, you believes will be looked upon as idiots. History will go down with you being seen as not scientists at all, but friggin idiots.  I certainly see you that way.

I was tested with extreme IQ and science/math has been my life since I was a young child.  Whenever someone tells you something, you should never believe them, but seek the truth far away from the dumb sheep in the classes of pure nonsense and  indoctrination.

Now, where is your absolute evidence for evolution, with no opinions at all?  Opinions are not evidence, and so far all you have is belief and opinions based on believe, because there is no evidence to support such a dumb ass belief.

Look in the mirror, note the changes in your DNA, note that this occurs in every person and that the frequency in gene varients in the population changes over time, and we name that process... evolution.

Now, where is your absolute evidence that these changes are not mutations but are old gene structures from the past.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 9:54am:

glowingape wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 9:46am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 8:49am: If you actually think and believe this. And why do you keep repeating something, that was already refuted multiple times? Should I *REALLY* answer something that was already answered at least 5 times? So you renounce the Theory of Evolution then?

Yep. And I'm replacing it with the fact, that humans are descendants from laughing squirrels and a gravy pudding. Oh, and a box of chocolate is our sibling. So DON'T EAT IT!

But let me get this straight; Because I haven't bothered to answer a question, that was already answered a dozen times on this very forum, I'm inclined to "renounce a theory of evolution"? The thing, that you have no clue, what it actually means, even if you've been told what it means EXACTLY?


Quote:

After 40 years of looking at this crap and seeing that it leads nowhere, has no scientific basis, and is not supported with anything but projection of religious beliefs; it is clear that it is a religion with magical causes and mystical events that have never taken place. Only really weak and feeble people would believe such crap.

I've told you, that that statement means squat to me. You have yet to show, that you've actually bothered to read any paper on any life science. So far, you've shown anything like that.


Quote:

In the future, you believes will be looked upon as idiots. History will go down with you being seen as not scientists at all, but friggin idiots.  I certainly see you that way.

Statement of no effect.


Quote:

I was tested with extreme IQ and science/math has been my life since I was a young child.

I'm marking this as "crap" again. Extreme IQ? If that is so true, why are you so eager to delete comments, when they don't fit into your version of "reality"?

The "Extreme IQ" qould have no problem with answering the straightforward questions, rather than delete questions, modify the posts, erecting strawmen and ad hominem attacks, or just simply lying.

You claim to be a "honest" person, but none of that was shown as of yet...

glowingape wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 11:26am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 9:54am: glowingape wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 9:46am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 8:49am: If you actually think and believe this. And why do you keep repeating something, that was already refuted multiple times? Should I *REALLY* answer something that was already answered at least 5 times? So you renounce the Theory of Evolution then? Yep. And I'm replacing it with the fact, that humans are descendants from laughing squirrels and a gravy pudding. Oh, and a box of chocolate is our sibling. So DON'T EAT IT! But let me get this straight; Because I haven't bothered to answer a question, that was already answered a dozen times on this very forum, I'm inclined to "renounce a theory of evolution"? The thing, that you have no clue, what it actually means, even if you've been told what it means EXACTLY? Quote: After 40 years of looking at this crap and seeing that it leads nowhere, has no scientific basis, and is not supported with anything but projection of religious beliefs; it is clear that it is a religion with magical causes and mystical events that have never taken place. Only really weak and feeble people would believe such crap. I've told you, that that statement means squat to me. You have yet to show, that you've actually bothered to read any paper on any life science. So far, you've shown anything like that. [quote]In the future, you believes will be looked upon as idiots. History will go down with you being seen as not scientists at all, but friggin idiots.  I certainly see you that way.

Statement of no effect.


Quote:

I was tested with extreme IQ and science/math has been my life since I was a young child.

I'm marking this as "crap" again. Extreme IQ? If that is so true, why are you so eager to delete comments, when they don't fit into your version of "reality"?

The "Extreme IQ" qould have no problem with answering the straightforward questions, rather than delete questions, modify the posts, erecting strawmen and ad hominem attacks, or just simply lying.

You claim to be a "honest" person, but none of that was shown as of yet...[/quote]

OK. We know you hate being made into a fool, but you can't help it when someone uses pure logic on your fantasy life.

Now, what absolute evidence do you have for evolution?
You cannot present any opinions,only factual physical evidence that is clear, cannot be refuted by other plausibilities and or evidence.

Go for it.  I am patient. I have read all the stuff on your beliefs.  I have read 20,000 or more "scientific papers" in my life and studied most fields of science. The only thing I have ever read in "evolution papers" is belief projected on evidence and only opinions from that dumb ass belief.

If you want to prove you are sane, then present the evidence that makes you credible with me. All your other ad-hominen attacks are bovine garbage.

You are the idiot who can't understand what I write, can't answer this very obvious question on evidence, and are projecting what you think my agenda is.  You are the straw man and attacking for no logical reason person.

I am making an ass out of you in public.

You have no evidence for evolution and you know it. That is your problem.  You cannot overcome the truth about your crap religion, based on mystical causes, magical processes, and mythological "heroes" of great primates who had some mutation and out popped humans.

Belief destroys your credibility.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 6:53pm:

Belief destroys your credibility.

And lying destroys yours, Jimmy.

You know why GSFY will lampoon your position endlessly but never tell you where he stands? Because he has no standing. He has no background in science. He has not spent 40 years reading every peer reviewed paper in the world. He's not a seeker of truth, a teacher or whatever else he's conjured up to make him feel better about himself. He's a liar. Aren't you, GSFY...
If I were Luke Skywalker (which I'm not, wouldn't want to give readers an erroneous impression), GSFY would be the Jawa that tries to sell me the dodgy astromech unit.
I expect that I've discovered too much and will have my posts removed, but strike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can imagine, Darth GSFY.

Interesting that I answered the question and he ignored it.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 6:53pm:

OK. We know you hate being made into a fool, but you can't help it when someone uses pure logic on your fantasy life.

Yes, because you've shown your infaillible logic trough the forum. Well, except when it came down to actually answering a straightforward question. Than that logic fails, and you avoid answering the question like a plague. Instead, you spawn strawmen and other fallacies to make an non-existing case against the questioner.


Quote:

Now, what absolute evidence do you have for evolution?

Didn't you said you've "studied" science, or is that just my imagination? I've wonder how come you never came to "Science, outside the math doesn't deal with absolutes". But if I wanted to "prove evolution", it would be enough just to go into a lab and a jar of Drosophila megaloster (or Escherichia coli), a microscope and a little patience. And it's repeated again and again and again and again...


Quote:

I have read all the stuff on your beliefs.  I have read 20,000 or more "scientific papers" in my life and studied most fields of science.

Of course you've read 20,000 papers in 40 years. Which would mean that you've read 1.3 peer-reviewed paper per day and fully understand it. That's why the "mutation" means some horrible "freaks of nature" and geologists use "radiation dating". And you repeat that again and again and again. Specially since MarDuk (iirc) found the paper dated somewhere in 1932 (that's like 16 years BEFORE you were born). So, your credibility of "I've read 20,000 papers in 40 years" (altho you claimed on youtube, that you've read 200,000 of em), went out the window. Again.


Quote:

The only thing I have ever read in "evolution papers" is belief projected on evidence and only opinions from that dumb ass belief.

One actually questions, if you've ever read any single "evolution paper", since you're pretty much clueless about what evolution actually means.


Quote:

If you want to prove you are sane, then present the evidence that makes you credible with me. All your other ad-hominen attacks are bovine garbage.

I smell strawman attack. Which means -- You fail at psychology. Tsk, tsk, tsk... And oddly enough; this happened just when I've pointed out, that your "extreme IQ" is made of nothing else but of fail. And logical fallacies. Altho -- I wonder; You've asked AlanCFA on youtube once if he's gay, when you've failed to "impress" him with your "extreme IQ", which makes you wonder, what does that statement had to do with the "evidence of evolution"...


Quote:

I am making an ass out of you in public.

You're making ass of someone, that's certainly 100% correct, however, it's not me you're making ass of...


Quote:

great primates who had some mutation and out popped humans.

Wow! You really are clueless about paleontology, aren't you? Maybe it would be time to get educated? It's never too late, you know...


Quote:

Belief destroys your credibility.

Poor me and the stuff that can repeatedly be observed.

glowingape wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 4:37am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 6:53pm: OK. We know you hate being made into a fool, but you can't help it when someone uses pure logic on your fantasy life. Yes, because you've shown your infaillible logic trough the forum. Well, except when it came down to actually answering a straightforward question. Than that logic fails, and you avoid answering the question like a plague. Instead, you spawn strawmen and other fallacies to make an non-existing case against the questioner. Quote: Now, what absolute evidence do you have for evolution? Didn't you said you've "studied" science, or is that just my imagination? I've wonder how come you never came to "Science, outside the math doesn't deal with absolutes". But if I wanted to "prove evolution", it would be enough just to go into a lab and a jar of Drosophila megaloster (or Escherichia coli), a microscope and a little patience. And it's repeated again and again and again and again... [quote]I have read all the stuff on your beliefs.  I have read 20,000 or more "scientific papers" in my life and studied most fields of science.

Of course you've read 20,000 papers in 40 years. Which would mean that you've read 1.3 peer-reviewed paper per day and fully understand it. That's why the "mutation" means some horrible "freaks of nature" and geologists use "radiation dating". And you repeat that again and again and again. Specially since MarDuk (iirc) found the paper dated somewhere in 1932 (that's like 16 years BEFORE you were born). So, your credibility of "I've read 20,000 papers in 40 years" (altho you claimed on youtube, that you've read 200,000 of em), went out the window. Again.


Quote:

The only thing I have ever read in "evolution papers" is belief projected on evidence and only opinions from that dumb ass belief.

One actually questions, if you've ever read any single "evolution paper", since you're pretty much clueless about what evolution actually means.


Quote:

If you want to prove you are sane, then present the evidence that makes you credible with me. All your other ad-hominen attacks are bovine garbage.

I smell strawman attack. Which means -- You fail at psychology. Tsk, tsk, tsk... And oddly enough; this happened just when I've pointed out, that your "extreme IQ" is made of nothing else but of fail. And logical fallacies. Altho -- I wonder; You've asked AlanCFA on youtube once if he's gay, when you've failed to "impress" him with your "extreme IQ", which makes you wonder, what does that statement had to do with the "evidence of evolution"...


Quote:

I am making an ass out of you in public.

You're making ass of someone, that's certainly 100% correct, however, it's not me you're making ass of...


Quote:

great primates who had some mutation and out popped humans.

Wow! You really are clueless about paleontology, aren't you? Maybe it would be time to get educated? It's never too late, you know...


Quote:

Belief destroys your credibility.

Poor me and the stuff that can repeatedly be observed. [/quote]


I only asked one question that you avoid like the plague and you go on and on and on about me.

The question: Where is your irrefutable, absolute evidence for evolution?  You cannot use any opinions ever.

I have read, in 40 years, at least 20,000 scientific papers, books and scientific journal articles, and as of yet, not one piece of evidence for evolution that can't be refuted by objective logic.

What is your absolute evidence that would show the readers you are not delusional?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 8:33am:

I only asked one question that you avoid like the plague and you go on and on and on about me. The question: Where is your irrefutable, absolute evidence for evolution?  You cannot use any opinions ever.

Sigh. I really don't feel like repeating this over and over again:

Quote:

[quote] Now, what absolute evidence do you have for evolution?

Didn't you said you've "studied" science, or is that just my imagination? I've wonder how come you never came to "Science, outside the math doesn't deal with absolutes". But if I wanted to "prove evolution", it would be enough just to go into a lab and a jar of Drosophila megaloster (or Escherichia coli), a microscope and a little patience. And it's repeated again and again and again and again...[/quote]


Quote:

I have read, in 40 years, at least 20,000 scientific papers, books and scientific journal articles, and as of yet, not one piece of evidence for evolution that can't be refuted by objective logic.

Mhm. Yes. As I've said before; You haven't managed to show any evidence off the "I've read 20,000 peer-reviewed papers".

So, yeah...

glowingape wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 8:44am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 8:33am: I only asked one question that you avoid like the plague and you go on and on and on about me. The question: Where is your irrefutable, absolute evidence for evolution?  You cannot use any opinions ever. Sigh. I really don't feel like repeating this over and over again: Quote: [quote] Now, what absolute evidence do you have for evolution? Didn't you said you've "studied" science, or is that just my imagination? I've wonder how come you never came to "Science, outside the math doesn't deal with absolutes". But if I wanted to "prove evolution", it would be enough just to go into a lab and a jar of Drosophila megaloster (or Escherichia coli), a microscope and a little patience. And it's repeated again and again and again and again...

Quote:

I have read, in 40 years, at least 20,000 scientific papers, books and scientific journal articles, and as of yet, not one piece of evidence for evolution that can't be refuted by objective logic.

Mhm. Yes. As I've said before; You haven't managed to show any evidence off the "I've read 20,000 peer-reviewed papers".

So, yeah...[/quote]

Who told you that science does not deal in absolute evidence? Why did you drop your guard over your intelligence and believe them?

This is the cause of religious bovine garbage in science, like, a totally not provable, fantasy,  pile of garbage, like evolution.

If you want to indoctrinate children take away their inherent need for the truth and not to be lied to.  Fill in all the gaps with Evodelusionism religious bovine garbage.

Tell them not to seek the truth, but that all they need is some pile of garbage belief system with opinions by the high priests of delusion. Then call it science in order to perpetuate this bovine garbage.  Teach these poor victims, like you, that you do not need any evidence, or proof, all you need is some messed up theory in order to form beliefs.

Is that what they did to you?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 8:51am:

Who told you that science does not deal in absolute evidence? Why did you drop your guard over your intelligence and believe them?

You have absolutely no clue about the science, do you? If there were something "absolute" in it, there would be no more research, however, in every science every is constantly discovered, re-discovered, refined and fine-tuned. We don't know everything, and it would be absolutely idiotic to even imagine, that we do. There is always new things to discover, find and figure out. THAT is what science is all about.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 8:51am:

Who told you that science does not deal in absolute evidence? Why did you drop your guard over your intelligence and believe them?

Nobody, I read a large number of peer reviewed articles and noted that none referred to proof. The conclusion I drew was that proof was not a part of science. When I contemplated this I realised that the scientific method relies on falsification, not proof, and then it fit into place.

This notion is easy to disabuse me of. I gave you the chance. I asked for you to present any scientific paper, published in any journal, from the last 50 or so years, in which the authors referred to their conclusions as being absolutely proven.

In other words, I gave you an opporunity to provide me with the slightest sliver of evidence to back up your claim. You have not yet done so, and so by your own method of reasoning, I have dismissed it.

So, put up or shut up. Show me the evidence that science has ever dealt with proof.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 9:19am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 8:51am: Who told you that science does not deal in absolute evidence? Why did you drop your guard over your intelligence and believe them? Nobody, I read a large number of peer reviewed articles and noted that none referred to proof. The conclusion I drew was that proof was not a part of science. When I contemplated this I realised that the scientific method relies on falsification, not proof, and then it fit into place. This notion is easy to disabuse me of. I gave you the chance. I asked for you to present any scientific paper, published in any journal, from the last 50 or so years, in which the authors referred to their conclusions as being absolutely proven. In other words, I gave you an opporunity to provide me with the slightest sliver of evidence to back up your claim. You have not yet done so, and so by your own method of reasoning, I have dismissed it. So, put up or shut up. Show me the evidence that science has ever dealt with proof.

So, you back up your screwed up religious beliefs with brainwashed peers?

Don't you realize that historically humans are wrong 100% of the time when they have no evidence to back up belief?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 4:52pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 9:19am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 8:51am: Who told you that science does not deal in absolute evidence? Why did you drop your guard over your intelligence and believe them? Nobody, I read a large number of peer reviewed articles and noted that none referred to proof. The conclusion I drew was that proof was not a part of science. When I contemplated this I realised that the scientific method relies on falsification, not proof, and then it fit into place. This notion is easy to disabuse me of. I gave you the chance. I asked for you to present any scientific paper, published in any journal, from the last 50 or so years, in which the authors referred to their conclusions as being absolutely proven. In other words, I gave you an opporunity to provide me with the slightest sliver of evidence to back up your claim. You have not yet done so, and so by your own method of reasoning, I have dismissed it. So, put up or shut up. Show me the evidence that science has ever dealt with proof. So, you back up your screwed up religious beliefs with brainwashed peers? Don't you realize that historically humans are wrong 100% of the time when they have no evidence to back up belief?

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 4:52pm:

Don't you realize that historically humans are wrong 100% of the time when they have no evidence to back up belief?

And to date you are yet to produce a single scrap of evidence that science does now or ever will deal with proof. So what does that make you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1qruCbFIA

This video explains it very clearly.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 4:56pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 4:52pm: Don't you realize that historically humans are wrong 100% of the time when they have no evidence to back up belief? And to date you are yet to produce a single scrap of evidence that science does now or ever will deal with proof. So what does that make you?

I know your science deals with make believe.   That it your problem and why you can't show me any real evidence for evolution.  You don't have any.   All you have is opinions from "experts"  = ex spurts.  There is no such thing as an expert in a fantasy. Don't you know that?

When you can produce real evidence that has no other plausibility, and is obvious, with NO opinions, then you can call yourself a scientist, before then you are an Evodelusionists; a delusional believer in fantasy.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 6:52pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 4:56pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 4:52pm: Don't you realize that historically humans are wrong 100% of the time when they have no evidence to back up belief? And to date you are yet to produce a single scrap of evidence that science does now or ever will deal with proof. So what does that make you? I know your science deals with make believe.

Sure you do...


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 9:07am:

OH! Boy!  I'll bet you creamed your pants on that one. Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.  Moron!

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities?

I've answered that. Can you point me to a source of evidence to validate the point I queried in my last post please.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 12:04pm:

I've answered that. Can you point me to a source of evidence to validate the point I queried in my last post please.

You only cite opinions from the high priests with nothing at all to back them. That is the problem. A science based on opinions is not science.

so that would be a no then.

glowingape wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 12:29pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 19th, 2009 at 11:38pm: Seekers of the truth are not concerned with religious beliefs. No, they aren't. If there is a megalomaniacal jealous deity that throw people in hell, if you just think that he doesn't exists, that would make practically no difference in scientific community whatsoever. Well, asides of the fact that we should do whatever "it" says... Quote: The Truth = God. The truth has nothing to do with God. The "truth" may or may not be connected to God. Altho I find it interesting, that you equate a magical being, that poofs stuff out of nothing with something like "truth". It's even funnier, that you are bringing it up, since you don't believe in it? If you don't believe in it, how can you bring it up? There rest is just raving garbage, which I think it's something completely irrelevant for this topic.

I personally think you are the magical, mystical religious nutcase on here.

I go wit real science that has actual evidence.  You seem to go with religious slogans in your pseudo science.

You and all the believer in this bovine garbage religion will be mocked in future generations for being "primitive", "ignorant", and poor excuses for scientists.  That is you legacy for believing in things that have no evidence.

By the way, have you actually studied photosynthesis in bacteria?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 11:01am:

I go wit real science that has actual evidence.  You seem to go with religious slogans in your pseudo science.

No you don't. You don't even know the meaning of the term 'mutation' (see my sig). All your posts are permeated by 'slogans' and 'pseudo-science', which, given your above statements, makes you a lolcow.

"The answer is that there is no need for an alternative theory if the one you have is no frigging good and leads to nowhere as the theory of evolution."

Please tell me if there is anything illogical about that statement?

Give it a shot. 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 11:01am:

I go wit real science that has actual evidence.  You seem to go with religious slogans in your pseudo science.

1) Grammar fail.
2)
Quote:

Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.  Moron!

Quote:

Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process.

First, I need to know precisely which question you were answering. But, lets get on with it

"The answer is that there is no need for an alternative theory if the one you have is no frigging good and leads to nowhere as the theory of evolution."

Theory: A explanation that encompasses all known data with explanatory power. It is acceptable for a given data point to remain unexplained, but not acceptable for a given data point to disagree. Either the theory must account for the data point, or the theory as it stands must be modified.

If the current theory is "no frigging good", then it is not a scientific theory.
If the current theory does not explain the phenomena it seeks to, it is not a scientific theory.

How to proceed from that point on depends on your goals. If you wish to understand reality you form a new hypothesis and test it against reality.

Or, you bury your head in the sand, call yourself goodscienceforyou, and proclaim that anything not currently understood will never be understood.

Not actively searching for explanations lead to the dark ages. I agree with you on one point, a recurrent theme. Religion is a bunch of horseshit.

prolescum wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 11:15am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 11:01am: I go wit real science that has actual evidence.  You seem to go with religious slogans in your pseudo science. No you don't. You don't even know the meaning of the term 'mutation' (see my sig). All your posts are permeated by 'slogans' and 'pseudo-science', which, given your above statements, makes you a lolcow.

The word mutation means at the basic etymology, "change".

The word "change" implies ( I hate implications used in science or anywhere to mislead people.)  that it was something and became something else. Unless you can prove this change and know the causes absolutely, then it is bovine garbage to use this on things you know nothing about.

You cannot use the word mutation on something that you have no idea what causes it to manifest.  It is misleading, not scientific, and basically garbage.

And the only word that fits in DNA is "differences". If you can see the original DNA constructs and then see changes you can call them changes.

In genetics the word "mutation" has already been taken. It specifically means on the basic level "messed up chromosomes".  That I learned in science classes, by the way.  Somewhere along the way these weak humans decided to take a word that means changes and apply it where it does not belong, because you cannot call them changes if they are identical to a genetic pattern in the genealogy.

When some person who does not have the ability to think and does not understand the manipulation, caused by religious beliefs, then you are not very intelligent. Beliefs destroy credibility and if you have no ability to see this manipulation cause by this f**king belief then you are not very smart.

You cannot use implications in science. You cannot use any assumptions either.  You cannot call up some "science" paper from some delusional believer and use that as evidence.

If you read enough of them, you will see lots of "taking liberty" with this crap belief.  If it was science then all of the scientists would agree, because it has been proven beyond all doubts and there is only one conclusion on all facets. But you don't have that, because it is a f**king religion.

The reality is, this pseudo science, lives off belief and nothing else.

They took genetics and made and abortion out of it by having this ugly "elephant" in the room all the time of f**king belief with no evidence to back it. The "professors" have become the f**king high priests of delusion.

I hate most beliefs, because 99% of them are based on human emotional mental garbage, fueled by social bovine garbage and have nothing in common with the truth. 

I don't hate you, just your f**king beliefs that you have yet to show a single reason why you believe them to me.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 11:01am:

By the way, have you actually studied photosynthesis in bacteria?

Which one do you mean? Cyanobacteria or any other endosymbiont? In which case you should be more specific...

And for cyanobacteria; It doesn't say anywhere that it "digests carbon". http://www.micro.siu.edu/micr425/425notes/08-photosynth.html

oh_noes wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 11:43am:

First, I need to know precisely which question you were answering. But, lets get on with it "The answer is that there is no need for an alternative theory if the one you have is no frigging good and leads to nowhere as the theory of evolution." Theory: A explanation that encompasses all known data with explanatory power. It is acceptable for a given data point to remain unexplained, but not acceptable for a given data point to disagree. Either the theory must account for the data point, or the theory as it stands must be modified. If the current theory is "no frigging good", then it is not a scientific theory. If the current theory does not explain the phenomena it seeks to, it is not a scientific theory. How to proceed from that point on depends on your goals. If you wish to understand reality you form a new hypothesis and test it against reality. Or, you bury your head in the sand, call yourself goodscienceforyou, and proclaim that anything not currently understood will never be understood. Not actively searching for explanations lead to the dark ages. I agree with you on one point, a recurrent theme. Religion is a bunch of horseshit.

If you want to indoctrinate a child into a religious socially driven, cult, like evodelusionism, then teach them "that absolute evidence, seeking to find the truth in the matter doesn't count."  Then reinforce this belief with rhetoric and back it with opinions from "experts".  You don't need any evidence to form beliefs.

Teach them that only a f**king religious belief in some fantasy "scientific" theory is all you need to form beliefs and become a brainwashed fool.

My father taught me much better.  He told me not to believe anyone, no matter who they were, what "hat" they wear, or the titles and other false pretend crap, but to see the agendas and the need to perpetuate beliefs as the cause of their stupidity. Then to seek my own truth in the matter.

This has caused me to avoid all the idiotic beliefs of mankind and to only see to rid myself of all delusions.  That is my "religion" the one of getting free of all religious beliefs and only seek to find the truth.

You can tell a religious belief because of the extreme emotional attachments to them and the hate they cause.
You can tell by all the manipulation and avoidance of direct questions.

When someone attacks my knowledge, I give them the reasons for my understandings.  You can't, you just attack me as is typically of all religious people.

Now. Where is your absolute evidence, for evolution, that is irrefutable, has no other plausibilities, and has no opinions in it?

You need to seek to find the truth, rather than to be a puppet of other stupid people.  If you choose to be stupid that is your problem, not mine.
If you can't answer my question, then you need to find out why and how you got this stupid belief in Evodelusionism.

If you want to be free, I have given you the gate, the door, the window to jump through in that question.  If you can't find any real evidence, then why are you a believer?

If it far better to NOT believe than to believe in bovine garbage.

"The need to know where life comes from is the cause of all sorts of delusions, religions, gods, and false sciences that think they have the answers. 

It is the cause of a lot of suffering and pain, caused by factions who say this is truth, no that is truth you weak human, I will kill you; infidel, Satan worshipper! and such. With evodelusionists I get a lot of death threats, and death wishes, so that is a nice religion as well."

How do you know it is a religion:

1/  They want you dead if you oppose their stupid religion.  They want anyone who would teach people how to get free of delusions, dead, in the name of the "goodness" of their religion.

2/ They argue with other religions in court in public, on TV and on forums.  Only a friggin religion argues with other religions otherwise there is no arguments.


I am the anti religion person.  Away from all dogma, and beliefs is the truth.  If you don't want the truth, then why are you alive? What is the point of learning if all you want to learn is other people's bovine garbage beliefs and then try to conform?

The funny thing is in most religions there is some truth.  But that truth is destroyed by the false beliefs. 

In all religions there is a sense of superiority; that your religion makes you better than some other messed up religions that is just a screwed up as your religion.

The idea is to get out, be free, seek only the truth and to learn discrimination so you don't get trapped in bovine garbage.

To call something a change I must know why it changed, or I can't call it change?

Oh and I am curious. You say that mutation means "f**ked up chromosomes".

Can you find a reference to that line in the literature please. Actually I just wanted to take the piss there, but lets go onto something more interesting.

Gregor mendel, the father of modern genetics, died in the late 1800's. I cited papers from the very early 1900's that discussed mutation as I and others on these boards have defined it and contrary to the way you have defined it.

So, can you give me a period of time in which your definition was ever used in science please?

glowingape wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 11:53am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 11:01am: By the way, have you actually studied photosynthesis in bacteria? Which one do you mean? Cyanobacteria or any other endosymbiont? In which case you should be more specific... And for cyanobacteria; It doesn't say anywhere that it "digests carbon". http://www.micro.siu.edu/micr425/425notes/08-photosynth.html

OK! GEEZE! It is a process of using carbon and converting it to be used in the organism. WTF?

When some weak human dosen't recognize that carbon is natural and not synthetic in order to flim flam people into this idea that nylon eating bacteria is some form of proof of evolution, then you are a flim flam con artist weak human as well.

Bacteria adapts as all creatures do in ORDER TO SURVIVE as the same species. When any bacteria adapts and you take away the food they have adapted to; if they are to survive they will adapt so something else.
This is NOT EVOLUTION, but is only proof of adaptation to survive. The idea of some form of "programming" in any creature to evolve as the truth, is garbage.

The only thing in evidence is the ability of creatures to seem to want to survive and nothing else. There is no programming to "evolve".

If it remains as bacteria, then it did not evolve.

Is that clear?

Actually you just described evolution, it's not our fault you don't know what the theory actually states.

This


oh_noes wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 12:26pm:

To call something a change I must know why it changed, or I can't call it change?

and this.


oh_noes wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 12:49pm:

Actually you just described evolution, it's not our fault you don't know what the theory actually states.

glowingape wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 12:29pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 19th, 2009 at 11:38pm: Seekers of the truth are not concerned with religious beliefs. No, they aren't. If there is a megalomaniacal jealous deity that throw people in hell, if you just think that he doesn't exists, that would make practically no difference in scientific community whatsoever. Well, asides of the fact that we should do whatever "it" says... Quote: The Truth = God. The truth has nothing to do with God. The "truth" may or may not be connected to God. Altho I find it interesting, that you equate a magical being, that poofs stuff out of nothing with something like "truth". It's even funnier, that you are bringing it up, since you don't believe in it? If you don't believe in it, how can you bring it up? There rest is just raving garbage, which I think it's something completely irrelevant for this topic.

Your concepts of God as a "magical being" are all screwed up.  I don't know who taught you this crap, but you need to get far away from them.

God is all that exists in the natural world. The energy behind this existence has a cause.  The energy of the universe that created the first dichotomy of hydrogen gas out of nothing is your clue.  How did the entire universe come out of one proton and one electron in a huge, beyond human perception, quantity of Hydrogen that compressed and by fusion became all the basic elements of the universe. All of the periodic table of elements are caused by the fusion of simpler elements.

How did that "seed" of hydrogen know how to form all the elements?
Where did the power come from that "decided" to compress the mass of hydrogen?

How did it know to compress all that gas into a tiny mass, then explode when all the basic elements were created by fusion of the positive and negative (electrons and protons) building blocks of this universe?

Where did the electrons and protons come from?

Where did "space" come from?

Why are you so stupid? You live in a tiny box of delusion and are not able to think at all outside that tiny box.  Whey are you so stupid that you would limit your thinking to something so absurd and idiotic as a f**king, mythological Evodelusionism religion that can't even produce one piece of physical evidence to back it?

The weak and stupid are the victims of indoctrination and religious mystical delusional crap, like evodelusionism,  that has always been in science..

You are part of the problem of the retardation of science into the crap we have now.  All of those  idiots with degrees in bovine feculence are not going to make any break through's, and so we are stuck with crappy medicines, poor ideas and failures because the basic premise is nonsense.

We would already have a cure for pancreatic cancer if you get this feculence out of science. 

Random is nonsense.  Evolution is pure nonsense.

There is only "genetic stability" shown in the DNA and genome of all creatures.  The only statement of fact is adaptation as the same creatures and then extinction when that genetic structure can no longer survive because of the environment. When the poisons destroy the ability to form eggs, extinction of birds. When the genome can no longer support life under the conditions of heat, or freezing, then it goes extinct.

There is nothing else in evidence in the entire world.  Evolution is nonsense.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 12:49pm:

Actually you just described evolution, it's not our fault you don't know what the theory actually states.

The theory states the some fish crawled out of the water, grew legs, and lungs, decided to eat vegetation and bugs (where did the bugs come from?);... then it eventually decided that it wanted to be a reptile, so it did.... Then after some time it grew wings and learned to fly...Then it also decided that it could become a mammal, so it grew tits and stopped laying eggs, for no reason.  Eventually, we got humans from this fish as it changed into fantasy creatures and evolved by accident and random events.



This is the theory of evolution as it is explained by Evodelusionists all over the world.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 5:56pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 12:49pm: Actually you just described evolution, it's not our fault you don't know what the theory actually states. The theory states the some fish crawled out of the water, grew legs, and lungs, decided

Wrong - no 'decision' was made. You can't consciously decide to evolve. Only an idiot who genuinely doesn't understand evolution thinks this is the case.


Quote:

to eat vegetation and bugs (where did the bugs come from?);... then it eventually decided

Wrong - no 'decision' was made. See above.


Quote:

that it wanted to be a reptile, so it did.... Then after some time it grew wings and learned to fly...Then it also decided

Wrong - no 'decision' was made. See above.


Quote:

that it could become a mammal, so it grew tits and stopped laying eggs, for no reason.  Eventually, we got humans from this fish as it changed into fantasy creatures and evolved by accident and random events.

Sigh. Evolution doesn't mean things change by accident or randomly. The sooner you get to grips with this fact the sooner people may begin to take you seriously. When people say random they mean that the direction of change is unpredictable. Evolution is not a predictive science.


Quote:

This is the theory of evolution as it is explained by Evodelusionists all over the world.

No it's evolution theory as defined (incorrectly) by Goodscienceforyou.

Quote:

How did the entire universe come out of one proton and one electron in a huge

From where do you have that the universe came from one proton and one electron? Not true.


Quote:

How did that "seed" of hydrogen know how to form all the elements?

That's not what happened.


Quote:

How did it know to compress all that gas into a tiny mass, then explode when all the basic elements were created by fusion of the positive and negative (electrons and protons) building blocks of this universe?

Explode? From where do you have that something exploded?



Quote:

This is the theory of evolution as it is explained by Evodelusionists all over the world.

From someone not a supporter of Evolution; what you say here is not true. I have never seen anyone on this forum (or anywhere else) stating evolution in the way you do.

metha wrote on Jan 4^th, 2010 at 11:04am:

Quote: How did the entire universe come out of one proton and one electron in a huge From where do you have that the universe came from one proton and one electron? Not true. [quote] How did that "seed" of hydrogen know how to form all the elements?

That's not what happened.


Quote:

How did it know to compress all that gas into a tiny mass, then explode when all the basic elements were created by fusion of the positive and negative (electrons and protons) building blocks of this universe?

Explode? From where do you have that something exploded?



Quote:

This is the theory of evolution as it is explained by Evodelusionists all over the world.

From someone not a supporter of Evolution; what you say here is not true. I have never seen anyone on this forum (or anywhere else) stating evolution in the way you do.[/quote]


You think about what I have taught you.

There is no apparent or logical evidence for anything other than what I try to present.

The Big Bang is pretty obvious as how the universe was started, the ideas around how it happened are not fact. We can see the universe expanding from one point in space.

In the beginning was only the basic.  One positive and one negative.  There can be no other way. It is the foundation of all existence.

The computer you type on is binary. It does not operate on three.  The universe is the dance of positive and negative.

This is how evolution is stated as you go along and accept all the bovine feculence, eventually you will think that this is one big accident and that random is real.  Evolution is the idea that we evolved from fish. ;D

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 4^th, 2010 at 11:38am:

In the beginning was only the basic.  One positive and one negative.  There can be no other way. It is the foundation of all existence.

We do not know about the beginning yet. We know a lot, however, about the first few fractions of a second after the beginning. I believe that God made things happen, before the beginning. The rest is history.


Quote:

The computer you type on is binary. It does not operate on three.

Yes, but I could have made a ternary computer. 



Quote:

The universe is the dance of positive and negative.

Yes it is.


Quote:

This is how evolution is stated as you go along and accept all the bovine feculence, eventually you will think that this is one big accident and that random is real.   ;D

Once again; I do not accept the theory of evolution.

I agree with your conclusion, but not your arguments. I strongly disagree with the post I responded to, and it was my intention to reply to that only.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 4^th, 2010 at 11:38am:

There is no evidence for anything other than what I teach.

This is what I disagree on. I have given strong evidence not supporting your claims about several things. I also feel that many of your claims are not supported by evidence. I feel that you sometimes make claims without any arguments or evidence. Saying that something is a law, doesn't make it true. You need much more than that.

metha wrote on Jan 4^th, 2010 at 11:58am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 4th, 2010 at 11:38am: There is no evidence for anything other than what I teach. This is what I disagree on. I have given strong evidence not supporting your claims about several things. I also feel that many of your claims are not supported by evidence. I feel that you sometimes make claims without any arguments or evidence. Saying that something is a law, doesn't make it true. You need much more than that.

There is no random in the universe.  It violates the other laws of physics.

If a ternary computer was plausible, it would already exist.

Digital only works with on and off, no on off and maybe on or off. 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 4^th, 2010 at 12:12pm:

If a ternary computer was plausible, it would already exist.

It already exists. The first ternary computer was designed in 1840, built from wood. Apart from that, a modern ternary computer was built by Soviet during the cold war.


Quote:

Digital only works with on and off, no on off and maybe on or off.

Nope, it does not. Maybe-on-and-off is made up by you. There are more possibilities than ON and OFF.


Quote:

There is no random in the universe.  It violates the other laws of physics.

Again, you dissappoint me alot. It is NOT ENOUGH to state your opinion. You must SHOW me why. You never did, but I showed you why you are wrong. That you cannot see that, makes me really doubt my views that I share with you.

The basis of science is cause and effect.

If you have no cause and effect you have no science at all and you have no life.

It is a foundational law of physics.  You cannot go any deeper than at this level of science physics.

It is obvious and unless your innate bs meter has been messed with by some forced belief, then you are not able to see what is obvious and self evident.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 4^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

The basis of science is cause and effect. If you have no cause and effect you have no science at all and you have no life. It is a foundational law of physics.  You cannot go any deeper than at this level of science physics. It is obvious and unless your innate bs meter has been messed with by some forced belief, then you are not able to see what is obvious and self evident.

When you are at the level of obvious and self evident, you cannot go any deeper than that when you seek the truth.

The basic foundation of life is positive and negative.  These are the two polarities that all of existence is based on.