GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum
http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
General Category >> General Board >> Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1260648697

Message started by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 1:11pm

Title: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 1:11pm
I have to do it for them.
There is no science in delusions.

1/ The fossil record.

The fossil record is full of nonsense and because of the radiometric dating system is totally not reliabe as any form of evidence of anything other than dead extinct creatures and those that are not exitinct still look the same as the first of the genus from the first fossil they left 50 million to 125 millon years ago by this screwed up radiometric dating system.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257524945

There is absolutely no way to verify any of those fossils are even related, because without DNA in the fossils all you have is delusional believers. Making up crap from belief and nothing more.  When paleontologist believe in evolution, they have no credibility.  Any belief destroys credibility of any scientist.  There is no credibility until you have absolute evidence to back what you believe.

I have seen testimony of them taking a single toe bone and fabricating an entire creature from it. That is how delusional these idiots are. The odds of any bone not being distorted is 100% for distortion.  If you look at the fossils, then look at the Images and statues and animation of these creatures you can see that they took "artistic license" and make them fit their belief of what they want them to look like, but I am here to revoke their "artistic license".  I give them a new title of fantasy artists.

There are modern human, foot prints in hardened lava dating to 3.4 million years, by this human emotional mental garbage belief in radiometric dating.  Radiometric dating is not even science, has never passed a single test to see if it works past a few thousand years.
These foot prints are of a young child obviously holding hands with an adult. The foot prints match modern, today's humans.

They have a made up system for determining the "tree of life" and where these fossils fit.  But if you have no DNA all you have is human opinions and nothing else.

Opinions are like butt holes, everybody has them, but all you get is crap from them.

When you have absolute evidence it is self apparent and needs no experts to explain it.

In order to prove evolution you need a complete trail of even ONE genus that has ever evolved into some new creature.
This does not exist on this planet.

It only exists in the minds of Evodelusion believers.  That is not science, it is a human emotional mental garbage religion.

In order to show evolution, in fossils you need both DNA and to be able to see growing features.  You would need to see a partial leg growing in a fish and then you would need to have a full series of DNA and features that are progressing as this "evolution" is taking place.

That has never shown in any fossil. 

Today, right now, if evolution was true, we would see it in transitional creatures RIGHT NOW. That means in the world of creatures, we would need to see partial bones, partial teeth development, partial and transitional features in ALL CREATURES.  But we see the same creatures today as in the fossils of the first of any species or genus.

In the fossil record of what these idiots believe are pre humans, there is only dead ends with no trails of anthing from humans to these "fantasy" pre humans they call hominids.  All of these fairy tale "hominids" are dead ends with extinction and no tie to any humans.

This is true in the entire fossil record on all creatures. Dead ends with some huge gap. They fill in this gap with faith and belief. One idiot potsmoker54 says in his video. "Don't worry, about these gaps [of millions of years] you must have faith and belief in the science."  I kid you not! That is how delusional these people get after a while. They think they are making sense, and that is what delusions do to your thinking.



There are so many fossils that do not fit the belief.  In my 40 years of checking in and study, I know of at leas 100 fossils that have been argued over by "experts" (bovine shitters) in Evodelusion and they always come up with some "work around" to make them seem to fit the dumb ass belief.

The other part is most of these students, never see these fossils in the classroom.  They have a programmed indoctrination and they would not want to inject any real evidence that would spoil the religious belief. They want to make sure that the students declare their belief in public and write papers on the bovine garbage they are taught, before they allow them to see any of the contradiction. That way these students will not break from the belief.  If you have a PHD in this bovine garbage you basically screwed yourself.



You have to be an idiot to fall for this delusional crap.
And this is just one part of this delusion. ::)

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 3:34pm

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 1:29pm:
The fossil record is full of nonsense? I'd suggest it is full of fossils.

Why are you so hung up on genus anyway, why not order and family etc?


Pretty much all of your terminology is "slogans" of delusion.

There is only genus and species of any creature, there is no family or domain or any of your ridiculous nonsense.  You are a believer in nonsense held up with totally fabricated garbage "slogans" like that. Your "tree of life" is also a religious Icon. For crying out loud! A friggin "tree of life"  ;D :D how much more religious can you idiots get. ::) ;D :D

Then depending on the creatures of the genus, they are referred to as "strains", of the species, or "breeds" or "race" of the species. You can do a trail on the living and recent creatures, but you can't do anything with rocks that look like bones. 

Only if you have DNA trail can you categorize anything. That means that anything in the fossil record is worthless except as curios on the bookshelf.  You cannot, are not allowed to force your belief on evidence. It is call insanity.

You don't need anything else, because there is nothing else.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 4:10pm


They took this smashed inprint of this suppsed bird and make a mockery of it.

This is what delusions get you:



Can you imagine what a friggin juvenile thought that went past their heads as they made this crap model.  These people are insane, not rational at all.
This is the kind of crap they are using in classes to promote this crap. The more they can fabricate these creatures that they have no clue, NOT A CLUE, what they looked like and yet they impose this crap on children, and university students, who believe them because they trust these idiots.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 4:25pm


Making false images of creatures they have no clue about is called delusional human emotional mental garbage.



Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 5:02pm
You define it.  If you look in the old books it was clearly defined as the creature path of genealogy that came down from the firsts creature in the genus.

If you look at the first horse, and all the generations down the line they are all in the same genus.  There is nothing outside of that genus from any other lineage.  You must have direct DNA evidence to tie any of a genus together with any accuracy.

Personally, your definition is not valid.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 5:59pm


This is one of the most ridiculous pieces of crap I have ever looked at.  It needs to be mocked and ridiculed. ;D 

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 12th, 2009 at 7:05pm

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 6:04pm:
So you are now arguing that "bird" is a genus? That "fish" is a genus? That "reptile" is a genus?

You mentioned mammals, and you also mentioned platypus.
What would you say if I were to point out that the platypus is a mammal? It's a monotreme, defined as an egg laying mammal. The monotremes are an infraclass of mammals IIRC, along with marsupials and placentals.

Of course the mammals would never be considered a genus, and neither would the montremes. The classificaiton is too broad, but the point still stands. By your definition the mammals are a genus, and as such the platypus, placentals and marsupials are all members of that genus.

I should also point out that by your definition Eukaryote is a genus.


These are made up designations that need to be remade without the idea of evolution.

The first of the genetic lineage is the parent of the entire genus. 

Mammals, reptiles, marine, birds all have specific characteristics. Platypus does not fit with any of them, so it has its own genus and designation.  It is simply a Platypus all by itself and needs no other classification.
The reproductive methods of creatures are part of their basic classification. Breathing air, and producing milk is normally a mammal.
Why are you asking such things that have no bearing on the subject.
The subject is that you believe in Evolution, which means you believe that these lines of genus can be crossed, and there is no evidence of this on this earth.

A marine life cannot ever cross over into being a reptile. It violates all that we have in evidence. A reptile never becomes a bird. There is no evidence of this.  You have no idea where that funny looking bird came from, how it became alive, or even if it was alive with any certainty.

All you see is an imprint in some stones.  From there the imagination takes over.  Humans filter what they see by what they believe.  If you have no beliefs, then you stop filtering and just look at what is obvious. ;D
It is an apparent creature that has something that looks like feathers, but there is no way to know what the genetic make up was, or if it was just a genetic experiment from people from another planet.  Maybe it is a joke made by some ancient people who traveled here.  They check in once in a while and have a laugh at human stupidity.
I can just see them now, (not really), looking at that ridiculous mockery of science and laughing there asses off.

This thing is funnier than hell to look at. Realizing that some idiot believers constructed this fake bird out of beliefs and nothing else.



Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 13th, 2009 at 1:02am
"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.
.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 13th, 2009 at 8:51pm
"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.




Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 14th, 2009 at 8:13pm

oh_noes wrote on Dec 14th, 2009 at 5:26am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 13th, 2009 at 8:51pm:
"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)."


Ooh, now you have a problem. Now you have some explaining to do. You have offered a quote that concerns "families" of vertebrates.

Familes is a taxonomic classification that is above genus. Therefore, by your own definition, it does not exist.

Oh dear.

If you actually acknowledge this point I will go on to point out that within each family there are numerous geni, and within each genus there are numerous species, meaning that this particular quote simply demonstrates that the vast majority of extant species are not present in the fossil record.

D'oh.

But first, address the reference to family and it's implication for your definition of genus.


Let me get this straight?  You don't comment on the fact that 88% of the creatures now living (non bird) have been found in fossils and they look the same as what we have now. 
That part you missed, but you want me to accept some category program based on ideas that are not provable with no DNA?

I call this selective vision, caused by your "evodelusion glasses" you wear.

How long are you going to hang on to fantasy?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by oh_noes on Dec 15th, 2009 at 2:18am
I did comment on it. It's not my fault you don't understand the paper you quoted.  Let me break it down for you, to be sure you understand precisely why you are wrong.

You suggest that the Denton quote says 88% of creatures now living have been found as fossils. The paper doesn't say that. Doesn't hint at it, doesn't come close to saying it.

Denton discussed terrestrial vertebrates, of which there are four classes. Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and amphibians.

Denton then noted that there are 329 families within these four classes. And he then noted that of those 329 families, 88% of non-bird families have been found fossilised. Let me quote it again, for completeness.

[quote="Denton"]
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"
[/quote]

The key word, and the word that you so clearly overlooked because you don't understand, is family. 88% of the terrestial vertebrate FAMILIES have been found fossilised.

Let's look at what this means, shall we?  In taxonomic classification there are various levels, note where family sits in the ordering

Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

So, what does this tell us. It tells us that on average we have less than 1 fossil per family. How many genera do you suppose there are per family? You're the one who loves genera, you can probably tell me. I'd suggest it's going to be somewhere between 5 and 10 for the most part.

So, what your quote so ably demonstrates to us is that of all the living terrestrial vertebrate genera, excluding birds, comfortably less than 1 in 10 genera have been found fossilised.  When we consider that there can be upwards of 100 species within each genera we note that you sir, have absolutely no f**king clue what that quote says, because it destroys the position you think it supports.

Oh dear. Again.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by metha on Dec 15th, 2009 at 4:47am
Fossilization is so rare that you possibly cannot see evolution in them. The fossils do not show any evolution. You see jumps in the record, and this shows that evolution didn't happen. Quoting names of fossils doesn't make evolution true. You conclude that evolution is true because you think you see a pattern in the fossils, but it is just how our brain works: It seeks patterns. The fossils are rare and they do not show any evolution.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:35am

metha wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 4:47am:
Fossilization is so rare that you possibly cannot see evolution in them. The fossils do not show any evolution. You see jumps in the record, and this shows that evolution didn't happen. Quoting names of fossils doesn't make evolution true. You conclude that evolution is true because you think you see a pattern in the fossils, but it is just how our brain works: It seeks patterns. The fossils are rare and they do not show any evolution.


A sane person has arrived! 

88% of the non-bird fossils of living creatures we have now have been found.  That is not very incomplete. All the fossils look like these creatures now.

The evidence is overwhelming against evolution. Some of these creatures have been around for 125 million (mosquito) years as the same according to the defective radiometric dating.

They have found fish still living, thought to be extinct, that have been fossilized for over 50 million years;  Crocodiles from 50 million years, opossum for 70 million years with the same morphology. The list goes on.

How long does it take for a crocodile to evolve?

In every case there is dead ends and extinction or they are still living but absolutely no evidence for evolution in these fossils.


Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by oh_noes on Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:38am
Could you kindly critique my post please, noting the reference to families, genus and 88%. It's kinda important.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:40pm

Quote:
They have found fish still living, thought to be extinct, that have been fossilized for over 50 million years;  Crocodiles from 50 million years, opossum for 70 million years with the same morphology. The list goes on.


'kay.
and

Can you spot a difference?



Quote:
How long does it take for a crocodile to evolve?

define "evolve"

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 15th, 2009 at 5:27pm
Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features.

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:29am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 5:27pm:
Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features.


"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]"

The almighty wikipedia. And other books, that are more or less related with biology say the same.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:03am

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:29am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 5:27pm:
Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features.


"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]"

The almighty wikipedia. And other books, that are more or less related with biology say the same.


Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

In case you missed all the evidence. There is no evidence of any creature ever changing into a new species with new morphology. There is only a contiual genealogy of creatures with not one ever transforming into a new life form.

DNA shows a constant loss of genes, atrophied genes, genetic disease and a general reduction in fitness of all creatures.

No fish has ever shown to crawl out of the water and become a reptile.  No reptile has ever become a mammal or bird.

It is a total mythology with no evidence.  It is a religion, with magical creatures and mystical causes.

It needs to be removed from our folk lore myths.
No religious crap should be taught in universities or any public school.  8-)

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:41am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:03am:

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:29am:
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]"

The almighty wikipedia. And other books, that are more or less related with biology say the same.


In case you missed all the evidence. There is no evidence of any creature ever changing into a new species with new morphology. There is only a contiual genealogy of creatures with not one ever transforming into a new life form.

No fish has ever shown to crawl out of the water and become a reptile.  No reptile has ever become a mammal or bird.

It is a total mythology with no evidence.  It is a religion, with magical creatures and mystical causes.

It needs to be removed from our folk lore myths.
No religious crap should be taught in universities or any public school.  8-)

Again; Evolution never suggested anything like you've said. It's just change of genetic material over successful generations.

And if you're asking about evidence of "changing morphology", that has "never been observed", here is one quite common: Caterpillars -> Butterfly.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:46am

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:41am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:03am:

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:29am:
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]"

The almighty wikipedia. And other books, that are more or less related with biology say the same.


In case you missed all the evidence. There is no evidence of any creature ever changing into a new species with new morphology. There is only a contiual genealogy of creatures with not one ever transforming into a new life form.

No fish has ever shown to crawl out of the water and become a reptile.  No reptile has ever become a mammal or bird.

It is a total mythology with no evidence.  It is a religion, with magical creatures and mystical causes.

It needs to be removed from our folk lore myths.
No religious crap should be taught in universities or any public school.  8-)

Again; Evolution never suggested anything like you've said. It's just change of genetic material over successful generations.

And if you're asking about evidence of "changing morphology", that has "never been observed", here is one quite common: Caterpillars -> Butterfly.


That is not evidence.  Opinions are not evidence.

There exists only evidence of genetic stability, with minor changes of degradation shown in DNA, until the creature goes extinct.  if the environment changes they cannot survive. That is all there is.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I have studied this for over 40  years and that is all shown in evidence. 

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 2:12am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:46am:
That is not evidence.  Opinions are not evidence.

What "opinions"?

Quote:
There exists only evidence of genetic stability, with minor changes until the creature goes extinct.  if the environment changes they cannot survive. That is all there is.  Nothing more, nothing less.

What's this "law of genetic stability" you're talking about? In 30 years of dealing with biology, I haven't heard anything like that...


Quote:
I have studied this for over 40  years and that is all shown in evidence. 

If you've studied "this" for 40 years, some knowledge of "this" would show... Whatever "this" is...

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 2:44am

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 2:12am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:46am:
That is not evidence.  Opinions are not evidence.

What "opinions"?

Quote:
There exists only evidence of genetic stability, with minor changes until the creature goes extinct.  if the environment changes they cannot survive. That is all there is.  Nothing more, nothing less.

What's this "law of genetic stability" you're talking about? In 30 years of dealing with biology, I haven't heard anything like that...

[quote]
I have studied this for over 40  years and that is all shown in evidence. 

If you've studied "this" for 40 years, some knowledge of "this" would show... Whatever "this" is...[/quote]

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

There is no such thing as any form of evolution.  It does not exist on this planet.  I know all the fairy tale belifs and how you got stuck with these ridiculous concepts, but there is no scientific basis for your beliefs.

There is genetic stability until the creature atrophies and dies out.  Once the foundational genetics can no longer support the genetic lineage it goes extinct.

If you want to bring up all the evidence you have, I would gladly show you the logical fallacies in them and why there is  no evidence for evolution.

Here is a chance for you to get free and to be able to remove this limitation from your mind and be able to do something that is real and get the handcuffs of this delusion out of your life.  In other words I am offering you a chance to get free and become a free thinker.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 3:18am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 2:44am:
There is no such thing as any form of evolution.  It does not exist on this planet.  I know all the fairy tale belifs and how you got stuck with these ridiculous concepts, but there is no scientific basis for your beliefs.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Since you didn't even get the definition of "evolution" correct, how would be even remotely possible for you to refute anything connected to evolution?

You believe that evolution is something, that the definition doesn't even suggest. So yeah. You're strawmaning the definition of evolution.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by metha on Dec 16th, 2009 at 8:39am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 5:27pm:
Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features.


YOU'RE a genus!

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 9:28am

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 3:18am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 2:44am:
There is no such thing as any form of evolution.  It does not exist on this planet.  I know all the fairy tale belifs and how you got stuck with these ridiculous concepts, but there is no scientific basis for your beliefs.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Since you didn't even get the definition of "evolution" correct, how would be even remotely possible for you to refute anything connected to evolution?

You believe that evolution is something, that the definition doesn't even suggest. So yeah. You're strawmaning the definition of evolution.


The argument you are using is the latest defense mechanism for this religious belief in mystical causes, and magical processes.

I have studied this for 40 years and this is what is in the whole of this theory:  I only seek the truth on this matter and nothing else. But I have never seen anything but the laws of genetics in play.

Starting from a "watered down" idea that normal genetics and normal adaptation of creatures is equal to some mass changes over some immense time is not what evolutions dogma is. This is the huge stretch from the actual evidence and the belief.


1/ The Theory of Evolution startes with the idea that life came from no life. That some spontaneous life came from minerals and from some accidental random events. You cannot deny this by classifying it as abiogenesis.  You cannot take parts away and call it a hole system of "scientific" (religious) thought.

2/ That from very small creatures, one cell, all life "evolved" over some immense time with no direction or programming.

3/ That all life forms "evolved" from marine life.  That this marine life eventually "evolved" and decided to grow legs, lungs and breath air and become reptiles.

4/ That these fish-reptiles eventually evolved into mammals and birds.

5/ That speciation some how proves "1" through "4", when the only evidence is a genealogy within the genus and no lizard has become anything but another lizard, but because the lizard or any creature has changed or adapted is projected out to some imaginary transformation with no physical evidence.  No bird has become anything other than a bird. That no bacteria has become anything but bacteria.  The small horse eventually becomes a large horse and the breeds all came from the small horse. This does not show any evolution into any other creatures or genus.

6/ That the inference of the changes in the DNA between generations somehow proves evolution, when with each generation in the last 70 million years of creatures that still exist, there have been no mutations that show any changes to any species beyond simple adaptions to the environment. 

7/ The finale premises of evolution is that creatures can violate the laws of genetics by "magical thinking" and turn into an entirely new species and genus.   I have yet to see any evidence of that.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRj_HxO_e80


The best thing a person can do is to regain their natural objective perspective that they are born with and give up all the brainwashing you have gotten along the way.  It is a simple thing to step back and go over each and every belief that has been shoved down your figurative throat by the people who love you, your friends, family, parents, teachers, preachers and get away from it as far as you can.
Realizing that it is all the folly of human beings and not to be taken as truth.  There is no truth until is is absolutely proven to you.  If you have no absolute evidence, then don't believe any of it. How can you not understand this?
It is obvious.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." Albert Einstein"

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
Albert Einstein

You must find your own truth far away from all the brainwashing.

By the way aerodynamics,physics, chemistry, electronics, atomic theory (and laws), most science has science in it, but evolution is a religion with no merit.  Evolution is a religion BS by clear definition of relying only on faith and belief. There is not a tiny bit of reality in it except for the normal common everyday genetics, which shows clearly that evolution is not possible.
The only part that is real is genetics.  But this belief has grossly screwed up genetics and the drug supply with toxic and neuro toxic drugs, being sold as prescriptions.

The really intelligent people, are not going to go to university and get a degree in religious bovine garbage.  So we have the lowest common denominator in the education system of people willing to give up all logic and reason to get a paycheck.

We are creating a world of nitwits and chemical zombies with this crap religion.   It needs to stop being taught because all religious bovine garbage should not be included in science.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by oh_noes on Dec 16th, 2009 at 10:13am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 9:28am:
link=1260648697/41#41 date=1260956655]


I only seek the truth on this matter and nothing else. But I have never seen anything but the laws of genetics in play.

Reference them please, link to the science, show me where they are listed.


Quote:
1/ The Theory of Evolution startes with the idea that life came from no life.


Wrong, try again.


Quote:
That some spontaneous life came from minerals and from some accidental random events.

Wrong, try again.


Quote:
You cannot deny this by classifying it as abiogenesis.


Wrong, try again.


Quote:
2/ That from very small creatures, one cell, all life "evolved" over some immense time with no direction or programming.


No destination, but direction is provided by natural selection.


Quote:
3/ That all life forms "evolved" from marine life.  That this marine life eventually "evolved" and decided to grow legs, lungs and breath air and become reptiles.


Wrong, try again.


Quote:
4/ That these fish-reptiles eventually evolved into mammals and birds.


Yep, that's about right.


Quote:
5/ That speciation some how proves "1" through "4"

Since 1-3 are not part of evolutionary theory, 5 fails.


Quote:
when the only evidence is a genealogy within the genus

Your definition of genus is actually the definition of clade. This statement holds true within clades, but since Eukaryote is a clade it refutes your position entirely.


Quote:
and no lizard has become anything but another lizard, but because the lizard or any creature has changed or adapted is projected out to some imaginary transformation with no physical evidence.

Wrong, try again.


Quote:
  No bird has become anything other than a bird.

Hey look at that, you got something right. Wow.


Quote:
That no bacteria has become anything but bacteria.

Wrong, try again.


Quote:
  The small horse eventually becomes a large horse and the breeds all came from the small horse. This does not show any evolution into any other creatures or genus.


Word salad, irrelevant.


Quote:
6/ That the inference of the changes in the DNA between generations somehow proves evolution


It is evolution, that's the name given to it.


Quote:
When with each generation in the last 70 million years of creatures that still exist, there have been no mutations that show any changes to any species beyond simple adaptions to the environment.

Nearly. For 3.5 billion years there are no mutations that show changes to any spcies beyond simple adaptation to the environment. Now you're onto something. 


Quote:
7/ The finale premises of evolution is that creatures can violate the laws of genetics by "magical thinking" and turn into an entirely new species and genus.


Wrong, try again.


Quote:
   I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Good, since it would violate evolutionary theory.



So, it would seem you continue to argue against a straw man. Look, none of the nonsense above has anything to do with evolutionary theory, and nothing to do with anything I accept. So why do you continue to argue against a straw man?




Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by metha on Dec 16th, 2009 at 10:22am

metha wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 8:39am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 5:27pm:
Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features.


YOU'RE a genus!


Oops, sorry, I meant genius.


oh_noes seems like an intelligent person, so why he falls for this evolution thing is beyond me.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 11:15am

metha wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 10:22am:
Oops, sorry, I meant genius.


oh_noes seems like an intelligent person, so why he falls for this evolution thing is beyond me.

I would blame pesky things called evidence.

And um... Which paper states, that "Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features."?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:05pm

metha wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 10:22am:

metha wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 8:39am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 5:27pm:
Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features.


YOU'RE a genus!


Oops, sorry, I meant genius.


oh_noes seems like an intelligent person, so why he falls for this evolution thing is beyond me.



It is a cultural thing in the UK.  The pressure to conform is intense.  You are considered to be "ignorant" if you don't believe in the religion of Evodelusionism.

They are spoon fed ideas that develop belief.

Watch my three videos on this.  It goes in detail on how people surrender up their objective reasoning to family, culture, and icons of society.

I tried to make these videos as simple as possible to get past these delusions imposed on children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPPafzd4wGI


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

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

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by metha on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:12pm
Maybe it is cultural, yes. I didn't know he was british. For me evolution is an attack on God. I guess you are not happy with me mentioning God in this forum, as I have seen that you share oh_noes view on that, but nevertheless, evolution is nothing but an attempt to remove God from the world view.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:13pm

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 11:15am:

metha wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 10:22am:
Oops, sorry, I meant genius.


oh_noes seems like an intelligent person, so why he falls for this evolution thing is beyond me.

I would blame pesky things called evidence.

And um... Which paper states, that "Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features."?


Please  present your absolute evidence for evolution showing all the experiments and DNA evidence in the fossils and any other ideas that you think is evidence?

We real scientists do not allow opinions as any form of evidence.  We only want empirical, absolute evidence that has no conjecture in it, self evident, and requires no indoctrination in order to understand it.  If evolution is real, then it is obvious and has no conflicting data.  The truth in any science has no conflicting data, because it is true. If it is not true then it is full of holes, caused by belief.

Can you do that?
I want to think that you still have that child like need for the truth and that you ego has not been so deeply involved that you have no objectivity left.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:22pm

Quote:
[quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Since you didn't even get the definition of "evolution" correct, how would be even remotely possible for you to refute anything connected to evolution?

You believe that evolution is something, that the definition doesn't even suggest. So yeah. You're strawmaning the definition of evolution.


The argument you are using is the latest defense mechanism for this religious belief in mystical causes, and magical processes.
[/quote]
Actually; It's more like you fail to read what the real theory of evolution says. Which paper said, that "Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features."; I mean besides the proponents of Intelligent design.


Quote:
I only seek the truth on this matter and nothing else.

No you don't. Your youtube channel says

Quote:
Evolution disproof methods, and most of all I am a seeker of Truth.

You have already decided, that your interpretation of evolution doesn't exists. Which, on the other hand, the sole definition of evolution you're suggesting is absurd. You won't even accept the definition of evolution as it's written in at least wikipedia and which is accepted by biologists.



Quote:
Starting from a "watered down" idea that normal genetics and normal adaptation of creatures is equal to some mass changes over some immense time is not what evolutions dogma is. This is the huge stretch from the actual evidence and the belief.

So, basically there is no possible way to walk 10 miles, if one can walk 50 yards.

I'd answer the "issues" 1-7, but oh_noes beat me to it...


Quote:
The best thing a person can do is to regain their natural objective perspective that they are born with and give up all the brainwashing you have gotten along the way.  It is a simple thing to step back and go over each and every belief that has been shoved down your figurative throat by the people who love you, your friends, family, parents, teachers, preachers and get away from it as far as you can.
Realizing that it is all the folly of human beings and not to be taken as truth.  There is no truth until is is absolutely proven to you.  If you have no absolute evidence, then don't believe any of it. How can you not understand this?
It is obvious.

Ah, appeal to emotion. I hate to tell you this, but you kinda fail at these kind of fallacies, as well as phylosophy in general...



Quote:
The only part that is real is genetics.

Ah, genetics. Another one of those awesome things, that you've shown no knowledge about.


Quote:
But this belief has grossly screwed up genetics and the drug supply with toxic and neuro toxic drugs, being sold as prescriptions.

Yes! That must be it! Those evil and psychotic doctors making drugs, that blocks HIV transcription processes, those psychotic bastards that make vaccine for smallpox, tetanus, rabies and flu, make chemotherapy drugs, make antibiotics, that stop bacteria replication. Those evil bastards! We should all say "f**k you" to those doctors and get bitten by a rabid animal or step on rusty nail infected with tetanus. THAT would show them what we do for humanity.

Do I hear "Darwin award"? :D


Quote:
The really intelligent people, are not going to go to university and get a degree in religious bovine garbage.

The really intelligent people try to solve problems in all fields of science. And vast majority of them has *drum roll* PhD's!

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:28pm
You have not stated any evidence, only your slogans.

Slogans with no evidence is not proof.

After 40 years of study and realizing this is a religion, I decided to try and help people like you to get free.

I am simple telling you all the things I have learned from studying your beliefs in great detail and knowing all that you know, from the point of reality and not believing in anything that is not empirically and absolutely proven.

I have no religion for the same reasons.

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution? No opinions allowed.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:29pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:13pm:

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 11:15am:

metha wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 10:22am:
Oops, sorry, I meant genius.


oh_noes seems like an intelligent person, so why he falls for this evolution thing is beyond me.

I would blame pesky things called evidence.

And um... Which paper states, that "Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features."?


Please  present your absolute evidence for evolution showing all the experiments and DNA evidence in the fossils and any other ideas that you think is evidence?

Can you repeat after me? "Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Only math deals with those."

And DNA in the fossils? You mean besides ancient DNA?


Quote:
We real scientists...

Correction; "You, failed scientists..." If you're "real" scientist, then where are your peer-reviewed papers? What is your education? What kind of "science" you're working with? And if it's not paleontology, geology or biology, then how can you even state any of your claims, that you're making about those three fields?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:30pm
You cannot get a PHD in any field relating to evolution and not be just a brainwashed believer in fairy tales.
This crap has reduced medical science and biology to a stunted religion.

A PHD only means that you are able to parrot the beliefs.



Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:34pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:28pm:
You have not stated any evidence, only your slogans.

Slogans with no evidence is not proof.

Ah, I'm the one that makes "slogans", and you're the one with "fancy" signature. Which is -- Believe it or not -- Also called "slogan".
And you still fail at philosophy.


Quote:
After 40 years of study and realizing this is a religion, I decided to try and help people like you to get free.

Good for you. Except you have no idea about what you're saying. I mean -- I am still intrigued into finding a paper, that says "Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features." Can you show me the paper on this claim? Specially since the theory of evolution NEVER CLAIMED ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
[/quote]

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:37pm

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:34pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:28pm:
You have not stated any evidence, only your slogans.

Slogans with no evidence is not proof.

Ah, I'm the one that makes "slogans", and you're the one with "fancy" signature. Which is -- Believe it or not -- Also called "slogan".
And you still fail at philosophy.


Quote:
After 40 years of study and realizing this is a religion, I decided to try and help people like you to get free.

Good for you. Except you have no idea about what you're saying. I mean -- I am still intrigued into finding a paper, that says "Evolve = change into an entirely new species or genus with totally new features." Can you show me the paper on this claim? Specially since the theory of evolution NEVER CLAIMED ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

[/quote]
Tell me your exact definition of the theory of evolution.

I have studied this for over 40 years and they keep trying to disguise it by hiding it in normal genetics. Then use that to brainwash.

Tell me what is your personal definition that allows you to believe?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:38pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:30pm:
You cannot get a PHD in any field relating to evolution and not be just a brainwashed believer in fairy tales.
This crap has reduced medical science and biology to a stunted religion.

A PHD only means that you are able to parrot the beliefs.

You're saying, that a guy that is completely clueless about any aspect of science and has no clues about how the reality works is "smarter than any PhD"? If so; In what field of science?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:48pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:37pm:
Tell me your exact definition of the theory of evolution.

"My" theory of evolution? What do you mean by "My" theory of evolution? I don't have "my" theory, however, here is, for the third time the same paragraph from Wikipedia, that the biologists accept:

Quote:
In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]


I really don't want to repeat this 157 times, so you want to remember it or write it down.


Quote:
I have studied this for over 40 years and they keep trying to disguise it by hiding it in normal genetics. Then use that to brainwash.

I'm sorry, but that "I've did 40 years this" and "I've did 40 years that" doesn't work by me. You had been proven to just lie (I don't know, if that's the consequence of senility or not), or is it because you want to feel important, which you just aren't, that "40 years" means nothing at all, if you can't back it up. So far, you haven't.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by oh_noes on Dec 16th, 2009 at 3:47pm

Quote:
Tell me your exact definition of the theory of evolution.


Definition? Ok. The theory of evolution is the totality of current understanding of the diversification of life on this planet, comprehensively explaining the known facts and providing a framework for further research.

How's that?

Learn to ask appropriate questions.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 16th, 2009 at 5:12pm

oh_noes wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 3:47pm:

Quote:
Tell me your exact definition of the theory of evolution.


Definition? Ok. The theory of evolution is the totality of current understanding of the diversification of life on this planet, comprehensively explaining the known facts and providing a framework for further research.

How's that?

Learn to ask appropriate questions.

Thanks for correction; I do not know, why, that "theory" part slipped.

But yeah; oh_noes corrected my blunder; Whilist I was sure that GSFY was wanting just a definition of the evolution, that's exactly what I've answered. Buut....


Quote:
Tell me your exact definition of the theory of evolution.

While the evolution is FACT, the theory of evolution, just like any other scientific theory talks about how everything falls into place. It's nothing more than a framework, supported by geology, geography, morphology, biology, phylogenetics, etc.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 16th, 2009 at 9:07pm

glowingape wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:38pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:30pm:
You cannot get a PHD in any field relating to evolution and not be just a brainwashed believer in fairy tales.
This crap has reduced medical science and biology to a stunted religion.

A PHD only means that you are able to parrot the beliefs.

You're saying, that a guy that is completely clueless about any aspect of science and has no clues about how the reality works is "smarter than any PhD"? If so; In what field of science?


Einstein was a frigging patent clerk.  People who live outside of the tiny box of politically accepted crap are like that.

All of his science that caused the big change was done on his kitchen table, for crying out loud!

My fields have been involved in the study of light. The study of electronics, my major field of study.  Physics, Math, engineering, and practical uses of physics and math.

Religious nonsense is not science.  You cannot test a single fossil and tell me exactly what it is.  The shape of bones tells you so very little. 

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 17th, 2009 at 1:18am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 9:07pm:
Einstein was a frigging patent clerk.  People who live outside of the tiny box of politically accepted crap are like that.

I'm guessing, that you've failed to actually read Einstein's biography. He *DID* went to school, and he *DID* gained his PhD's.

Here you go: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html


But what does any of this got to do with evolution?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by metha on Dec 17th, 2009 at 2:40am
Einstein had a lot of help and was inspired also by others work. He wasn't the first to come up with the idea of relative time. Einstein went to school in Zurich, where he also obtained his PhD. He did some work while he was working at the patent office, but discovered later that it had all been done before. Later he got positions at various universities: Bern, Praha, Berlin, Leiden, Princeton New Jersey.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 17th, 2009 at 7:53am

metha wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 12:12pm:
Maybe it is cultural, yes. I didn't know he was british. For me evolution is an attack on God. I guess you are not happy with me mentioning God in this forum, as I have seen that you share oh_noes view on that, but nevertheless, evolution is nothing but an attempt to remove God from the world view.



You are absolutely correct, and they do it with such stupid concepts and a sick form of indoctrination.  It amazes me that people are that gullible.  They don't allow children to think for themselves in this indoctrination and the coercion by using children's need to be accepted, status and money,  as power against them.  They raise "science" to god like.  When it is a bunch of low IQ people who are weak.

In the US this is forced on children at an early age with TV shows with fairy tale creatures that have never existed, and dumb ass "science" shows to make them believe before they take on single class on this crap.

It is natural in a greedy society to want to remove any form of religion from the education system, so they put in their form of magical events and mystical creatures religion backed up with dumb opinions.

This is forced on children because of the ACLU, and the nonsense from people.

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:02pm
I think it is pretty clear that the fossil record does not show any form of evolution.

I have been looking at it for over 40 years and so far all dead ends and no answers to anything.

A fossil shows up, remains the same for as long as it is around then goes extinct. Or it is still the same as it was originally in morphology after as long as 125 million years. Even at 50 million of these radio metric (unrealistic) years. Still remain the same creature with no evolution.

How long does it take for this magical process to take place?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by glowingape on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:15pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:02pm:
I think it is pretty clear that the fossil record does not show any form of evolution.

Specially since you've shown, that you know so much about anything, let alone fossils.


Quote:
I have been looking at it for over 40 years and so far all dead ends and no answers to anything.
"I've been doing this for 40 years", "I've been doing that for 40 years". You mean you did something else for 40 years than spouting nonsense?


Quote:
How long does it take for this magical process to take place?

How long can you wait?

Title: Re: Because these cowards will not expose their relgious beliefs in public..
Post by GoodScienceForYou on Dec 24th, 2009 at 10:13pm

glowingape wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:15pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:02pm:
I think it is pretty clear that the fossil record does not show any form of evolution.

Specially since you've shown, that you know so much about anything, let alone fossils.


Quote:
I have been looking at it for over 40 years and so far all dead ends and no answers to anything.
"I've been doing this for 40 years", "I've been doing that for 40 years". You mean you did something else for 40 years than spouting nonsense?

[quote]How long does it take for this magical process to take place?

How long can you wait?[/quote]

If you can't show me any empirical evidence for your position, then you are technically delusional for believing in this crap.

What absolute evidence do you have for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities?

That is about 21 times I have asked.  Go back and count how many times you have avoided this question. Then ask yourself why you avoid it? 

GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.4!
YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved.