And let me explain how it has been proven.
Now what I am about to explain is evolution which means the gradual change of organisms over a long period of time. This is not to be confused with abiogenesis which is an entirely 'separate' theory all together. Theory in this context is considered a scientific theory and not a layman theory. The difference is, is that a scientific theory is the highest construct an idea can achieve within science while a layman theory is equated with a guess. A scientific theory is an idea or notion which explains the substantial evidence that presents itself.

Now on to explaining that evolution has been proven.
- Mutations -
Mutations are the backbone of what makes evolution work. Most people are against the term evolution and it can bring a bad vibe in most peoples mouths who are vehemently opposed to the mere idea of evolution. So lets change the word evolution to "The gradual accumulation of mutations over time."

Now mutations occur in what appears to be "randomly" in an organism. When this happens, mutations are able to change your eye color, hair color, skin color, the way you act and just about any other aspect of your character (you as an individual) that you can name off. Environment does play a roll in behavior as well as genetics does. But we wont get into that.

Now, we can witness mutations even within the human species. For instance, Scandinavian individuals are renown for having blond hair and blue eyes. Yet, the Japanese never have blond hair or blue eyes. They have brown skin, brown eyes, and usually black hair. This is the polar opposite of the regular Scandinavian individual. This is the cause of mutations. From eye color to hair color to skin color. All of it is caused by and from mutations which add up over time. If we take a look at the individual and what environment they are surrounded by, we know that their mutations are there because it helps defend against the environment. Not because it wants to, but because the mutation HAS to be that mutation if the organism expects to survive and procreate in the given environment. (procreation is an organisms ultimate goal) If the individual with a harmful mutation dies, it can't pass on that mutation to its offspring. This is the primary reason why Africans are black, native Americans are red, Japanese are brown, and Europeans are white. It is all due to mutational differences. Now if you put a group of creatures in isolation with each other where they cannot procreate and spread mutations outside of their selected group, the mutations they obtain will stay within that group. They do not magically inflict others of the same species if they do not procreate with them.

Isolation is another key to evolution. It causes mutations to be walled off from inflicting others of their race. If two of the same tribes of species in isolated parts of the world were to procreate, the mutations gathered from their isolation would be entirely different from one another. Remember, mutations can change what you look like dramatically from someone who is black to someone who is white. Mutations also 'never' reverse themselves. So when a mutation happens, it is there to stay unless another mutation removes the function of the previous mutation.

So how evolution works, is that an accumulated amount of mutations add up to equal a greater change. They then start from ground zero with the 'greater changed organism' and gather even more complex mutations. Eventually both animals, even though they derived from the same species, will look, act, feel, and taste entirely different.

So by saying that evolution isn't true is the exact same thing as saying that gradual mutations over long periods of time isn't true. If you say that the latter isn't true, you are also saying that mutations do not exist.

There is no mechanism in evolution which dictates that sex chromosomes do not mutate or change. The notion of species is an entirely human construct to explain animals that can't breed together. They are not 'all together different' from any other animal on Earth.

Once a creature is inflicted with too many mutations where it can't be distinguishable from others that share a same ancestor, they wont be able to breed with those animals any longer.

To finish this long post up, evolution also does not work by a static amount of change. If a creature survives in an unchanging environment, the chances are, that creature will not evolve. If the environment is 'always' changing however, that creature has a greater chance of evolving.

I hope I cleared some thing up.

You presented the Evodelusion basic brainwashing definition.

They keep changing the definition as the evidence against evolution becomes more and more.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution that is irrefutable (has no other plausibility) and is physical with no f**king opinions from anyone.

You cannot site some belief, like "evolutionary pressure" which is just a slogan with no evidence.  The whole of your religion is held together with nonsense, nonscientific slogans that have never passed even one experiment. They are just believed for no f**kijg reason, other than repeated slogans that brainwashes students.

There exists no random mutations in this world of biology.
There is no plausibility for random to work on the genome of any creature without certain death.

I would like for you to submit yourself to a genetic clinic and have your DNA scrambled to see how long you live. If you are not willing to die for your beliefs then you are a fraud.

I am going to highlight every statment you made that was simply dumb ass opinions and assumptions from belief that has no evidence to back it.  You cannot just believe things without absolute evidence to back it.  If you can prove absolutely any of them, please do so.


Maelstrom wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 10:25pm:

And let me explain how it has been proven. Now what I am about to explain is evolution which means the gradual change of organisms over a long period of time. This is not to be confused with abiogenesis which is an entirely 'separate' theory all together. Theory in this context is considered a scientific theory and not a layman theory. The difference is, is that a scientific theory is the highest construct an idea can achieve within science while a layman theory is equated with a guess. A scientific theory is an idea or notion which explains the substantial evidence that presents itself. Now on to explaining that evolution has been proven. - Mutations - Mutations are the backbone of what makes evolution work. Most people are against the term evolution and it can bring a bad vibe in most peoples mouths who are vehemently opposed to the mere idea of evolution. So lets change the word evolution to "The gradual accumulation of mutations over time." Now mutations occur in what appears to be "randomly" in an organism. When this happens, mutations are able to change your eye color, hair color, skin color, the way you act and just about any other aspect of your character (you as an individual) that you can name off. Environment does play a roll in behavior as well as genetics does. But we wont get into that. Now, we can witness mutations even within the human species. For instance, Scandinavian individuals are renown for having blond hair and blue eyes. Yet, the Japanese never have blond hair or blue eyes. They have brown skin, brown eyes, and usually black hair. This is the polar opposite of the regular Scandinavian individual. This is the cause of mutations. From eye color to hair color to skin color. All of it is caused by and from mutations which add up over time. If we take a look at the individual and what environment they are surrounded by, we know that their mutations are there because it helps defend against the environment. Not because it wants to, but because the mutation HAS to be that mutation if the organism expects to survive and procreate in the given environment. (procreation is an organisms ultimate goal) If the individual with a harmful mutation dies, it can't pass on that mutation to its offspring. This is the primary reason why Africans are black, native Americans are red, Japanese are brown, and Europeans are white. It is all due to mutational differences. Now if you put a group of creatures in isolation with each other where they cannot procreate and spread mutations outside of their selected group, the mutations they obtain will stay within that group. They do not magically inflict others of the same species if they do not procreate with them. Isolation is another key to evolution. It causes mutations to be walled off from inflicting others of their race. If two of the same tribes of species in isolated parts of the world were to procreate, the mutations gathered from their isolation would be entirely different from one another. Remember, mutations can change what you look like dramatically from someone who is black to someone who is white. Mutations also 'never' reverse themselves. So when a mutation happens, it is there to stay unless another mutation removes the function of the previous mutation. So how evolution works, is that an accumulated amount of mutations add up to equal a greater change. They then start from ground zero with the 'greater changed organism' and gather even more complex mutations. Eventually both animals, even though they derived from the same species, will look, act, feel, and taste entirely different. So by saying that evolution isn't true is the exact same thing as saying that gradual mutations over long periods of time isn't true. If you say that the latter isn't true, you are also saying that mutations do not exist. There is no mechanism in evolution which dictates that sex chromosomes do not mutate or change. The notion of species is an entirely human construct to explain animals that can't breed together. They are not 'all together different' from any other animal on Earth. Once a creature is inflicted with too many mutations where it can't be distinguishable from others that share a same ancestor, they wont be able to breed with those animals any longer. To finish this long post up, evolution also does not work by a static amount of change. If a creature survives in an unchanging environment, the chances are, that creature will not evolve. If the environment is 'always' changing however, that creature has a greater chance of evolving. I hope I cleared some thing up.

What we have in all of the real evidence is creatures show up, they reamain the same morphology for up to 125,000,000 years, go extinct or are still here as the same creature.

The only thing shown in DNA, fossils, and in speciation is creatures come in with genetic coding from their ancestors, adapt to poisons and environment,like food and weather, and if they breed after they adapt they pass on some of that "protection" from poisons or adaptations like teeth, to the species.  If the poisons are no longer there, those adaptations will go away as not needed for survival as the same creatures.
When the limits of that genome is met in the environment they go extinct.

Being separate species is not a prerequisite for not being able to breed. We have evidence of creatures with genetic changes that make them a separate species and they can still breed and produce viable offspring after 2 million years of separation ( by the messed up radiometric dating system based on logical fallacies).

There is nothing else in evidence.

Creatures having a very short life, like less than one day or for mammals less than one year, will pass very few differences from adaptation to their offspring.  This is because their life is too short to cause any drastic changes and why most birds small birds have gone extinct. There genome is very sensitive to environment and to poisons that stop them from breeding. They don't adapt to poisons very well.  Large long living birds do.

Adaptations shown in the genome are not "mutations" that cause drastic changes over some fantasy long period of time. These adaptations come and go as needed for survival.

For instance if you take a group of  Llamas and return them to the Sahara desert, with a high probability adapt and start growing bigger and develop the hump for water, if you leave it there long enough. But it never evolves into a new creature of another genus.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:00pm:

with a high probability adapt

But there are no such thing as "probability". You have justed argued that there is no such thing as probability, and that nothing is random! IF something happens with a probability, then something has to be random, since you cannot predict it. You are full of contradictions.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:00pm:

Creatures having a very short life, like less than one day or for mammals less than one year, will pass very few differences from adaptation to their offspring.  This is because their life is too short to cause any drastic changes and why most birds small birds have gone extinct.

On this I actually agree...

metha wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:35pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 12:00pm: with a high probability adapt But there are no such thing as "probability". You have justed argued that there is no such thing as probability, and that nothing is random! IF something happens with a probability, then something has to be random, since you cannot predict it. You are full of contradictions.

This has nothing to do with random. Just stop!

It is highly probable that the Llama will revert and adapt backwards to the size and shape of the Camel because of the dry hot climate and the need for long legs.  This cannot be refuted and it holds with all the evidence we have so far.

Creatures only adapt to survive as the same creature! Even the most genetically changed creatures are not a new genus, like all the individual families of mice. They are still mice!
A horse is a horse of course. A small horse that becomes a big horse is still a horse.  It did not evolve.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm

This is very thorough and follows my logic pretty close. 
I find it interesting when my independent study of this is corroborated by people who seem to be seeking the truth.

http://www.living-fossils.com/2_1.php
Have you heard of this guy: harun yahya

He has a lot more living fossils in his information.

Creatures having a very short life, like less than one day or
Quote:

for mammals less than one year, will pass very few differences from adaptation to their offspring.  This is because their life is too short to cause any drastic changes and why most birds small birds have gone extinct. There genome is very sensitive to environment and to poisons that stop them from breeding. They don't adapt to poisons very well.  Large long living birds do.

You are such a f**king cretin. Do you know what that word means? Evolution doesn't happen by how long the creature lives. Evolution happens by generation. How many times the creature can reproduce or procreate. If a single strand of E-coli can reproduce 20 times in a day, then it can spread its mutations more than a human who lives to be 70 on average and has kids after 20 years.

If a species doesn't procreate very much, they will not be subject to many mutations and evolution will not happen very quickly. In fact, it gets drastically slower the less offspring the organism has over its life time.

Maelstrom wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 6:09pm:

Creatures having a very short life, like less than one day or Quote: for mammals less than one year, will pass very few differences from adaptation to their offspring.  This is because their life is too short to cause any drastic changes and why most birds small birds have gone extinct. There genome is very sensitive to environment and to poisons that stop them from breeding. They don't adapt to poisons very well.  Large long living birds do. You are such a f**king cretin. Do you know what that word means? Evolution doesn't happen by how long the creature lives. Evolution happens by generation. How many times the creature can reproduce or procreate. If a single strand of E-coli can reproduce 20 times in a day, then it can spread its mutations more than a human who lives to be 70 on average and has kids after 20 years.  If a species doesn't procreate very much, they will not be subject to many mutations and evolution will not happen very quickly. In fact, it gets drastically slower the less offspring the organism has over its life time.

As soon as you start with the insults and straw man, you have given full approval to be intellectually destroyed and called all sorts of names.  I have no patience for people who pretend to be nice, while they are really just dumb weak humans with deeply held delusional beliefs.

Your statements are contrary to the evidence, as usual.  There is no evolution shown in DNA.  The evidence show many thousands of DNA differences in humans over a life time.  If they breed with those changes, it can be passed down.  Those changes are strictly for humans to survive as the same species.  If you see programming for evolution you are nuts. There is only programming for survival as the same creature. 

Bacteria never has evolved in all the time we have known about bacteria. It has always remained bacteria.  Don't you know that? I have posted several examples for you to look at on this site.

What is the magical process that causes creatures to break the boundaries of their genetics? 
Where is your absolute, irrefutable evidence, that has no opinions in it.  I do not accept opinions from delusional believers and call that fact. 
Why do you accept religious mystical causes as if they were real?
There is no evidence for evolution anywhere on this earth. No fish has come out of the water and started breathing air. I have looked at all the so called evidence, but it is nothing but belief projected on fossils. Witt no tissue, DNA, it is a wast of time.
If this process were real, you would see it now.  No reptile has ever become a mammal or a bird. There is absolutely no evidence of this on this planet.  If this were true there would be billions of fossils in transitional forms and these fossils would be all over right now. 

Listen carefully: If evolution is true there would be evidence of it now in the living creatures on earth.  You would see partial bones, partial wings, and all the feculence you believe in, if it was true.

We have already established that fossilization is pretty common for creatures on the land.

You are an idiot, I don't care what religion you have, if you believe in evolution you are technically insane.

You need to realize that you are brainwashed with crap pseudo science and it ruins any possibility for you to be a free thinker.

How is it possible for a human in less than 20 years to have over 30,000 changes showing the genome's trying to survive before lung cancer takes their life. All of the evidence from the study of DNA says the same thing.  Creatures are meant to survive until the environment stops them.

Everything that you wrote has almost nothing in common with this idea of evolution.  You talk about genetics and races, like it means something.  If they are all still humans, then no evolution has taken place. 

Quote:

straw man,

Err wrong. I don't use straw man attacks. However, your arguments against evolution are riddled with them.


Quote:

There is no evolution shown in DNA.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

It's time to learn about biology. Yup yup!


Quote:

What is the magical process that causes creatures to break the boundaries of their genetics?

This is a lack of understanding genetics and evolution. There is no such thing as a different "kind." .. Just various creatures who 'can' and 'can't' procreate with one another.
There is also no mechanism in place which prevents sex chromosomes from mutating.


Quote:

No fish has come out of the water and started breathing air.

Aww, damn.. I guess mudskippers are just a figment of my imagination.


Quote:

If this process were real, you would see it now.

Evolution is not like pokemon.


Quote:

If this were true there would be billions of fossils in transitional forms and these fossils would be all over right now.

1 - It is VERY difficult for fossils to form in the first place.
2 - If you think evolution predicts "crocoducks" then you would be mistaken.


Quote:

If evolution is true there would be evidence of it now in the living creatures on earth.

Ok. Chromosome #2 in humans compared with the chromosomes in apes.


Quote:

You are an idiot, I don't care what religion you have, if you believe in evolution you are technically insane. You need to realize that you are brainwashed with crap pseudo science and it ruins any possibility for you to be a free thinker.

Ironic. You're a creationist who believes in a God and you call ME the insane one who follows pseudoscience.



Quote:

Everything that you wrote has almost nothing in common with this idea of evolution.

Maybe it doesn't seem like it has anything in common with evolution for a layman, like yourself.


Quote:

You talk about genetics and races, like it means something.  If they are all still humans, then no evolution has taken place.

Humans wont evolve into various species because we are not isolated from one another.

Maelstrom wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 12:49am:

Quote: straw man, Err wrong. I don't use straw man attacks. However, your arguments against evolution are riddled with them. [quote]There is no evolution shown in DNA.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

It's time to learn about biology. Yup yup!


Quote:

What is the magical process that causes creatures to break the boundaries of their genetics?

This is a lack of understanding genetics and evolution. There is no such thing as a different "kind." .. Just various creatures who 'can' and 'can't' procreate with one another.
There is also no mechanism in place which prevents sex chromosomes from mutating.


Quote:

No fish has come out of the water and started breathing air.

Aww, damn.. I guess mudskippers are just a figment of my imagination.


Quote:

If this process were real, you would see it now.

Evolution is not like pokemon.


Quote:

If this were true there would be billions of fossils in transitional forms and these fossils would be all over right now.

1 - It is VERY difficult for fossils to form in the first place.
2 - If you think evolution predicts "crocoducks" then you would be mistaken.


Quote:

If evolution is true there would be evidence of it now in the living creatures on earth.

Ok. Chromosome #2 in humans compared with the chromosomes in apes.


Quote:

You are an idiot, I don't care what religion you have, if you believe in evolution you are technically insane. You need to realize that you are brainwashed with crap pseudo science and it ruins any possibility for you to be a free thinker.

Ironic. You're a creationist who believes in a God and you call ME the insane one who follows pseudoscience.



Quote:

Everything that you wrote has almost nothing in common with this idea of evolution.

Maybe it doesn't seem like it has anything in common with evolution for a layman, like yourself.


Quote:

You talk about genetics and races, like it means something.  If they are all still humans, then no evolution has taken place.

Humans wont evolve into various species because we are not isolated from one another.
[/quote]

So much nonsense. Where do I start.

I am not religious, you f**king evotard! That is the first of your f**king straw man arguments.

You don't have a f**king clue about anything in life and you are dishonest with yourself.

Since when has the scientific community has found the understanding of the entire universe and knows all there is to know. It is a logical fallacy to use the idea that scientists are nothing more than weak and stupid feeble minded humans who can barley wipe there asses.  As soon as you give your life over to other people they own your ass and you become their slave, like a f**king weak groveling slave.

The amount of knowledge the total of humanity has is like a tiny bird turd in the ocean.  Turd = human knowledge and Ocean sort of = to the unverse.

You think that science is advanced when they actually have religious nonsense in their dogma?

You posted links to a f**king site with no evidence and only opinions.  I have read pretty much all of that logical fallacy nonsense.  You don't see it as nonsense because you are stupid and gullible and believe those weak humans and their religious dogma.

Mudskippers are fully functioning not transitional fish that can move on land. This is no evidence of any fish that made any transition to become a mudskipper. You fuking idiot!

"Evolution is not like pokemon." 
You are really as stupid as you seem.  I pity you.  You are so f**king owned by this garbage that you don't exist anymore.


"Humans wont evolve into various species because we are not isolated from one another."
Do you understand that you have absolutely no evidence for this statement, yet you believe?  Is it possible for a human to be more stupid than you?  The reason why there is no human evolution shown is because it never happened in evidence. I have looked and looked at all the evidence on this in great detail, yet there is absolutely no evidence for human evolution.

Your garbage religion is pseudo science with no evidence, and yet you believe.  You are so delusional and have no f**king brains, so much so that you will most likely go to your old age (if you make it) and death bed with all your f**king delusions in tact. That is really a sad use of a life.

Quote:

I am not religious, you f**king evotard! That is the first of your f**king straw man arguments.

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Sure sounds like you follow a religion. However, ironically, evolution doesn't fall into the cause of the universe or the purpose of the universe. Nor does it deal with superhuman agencies, rituals, or moral codes that conduct human affairs. So how is evolution religion again?


Quote:

It is a logical fallacy to use the idea that scientists are nothing more than weak and stupid feeble minded humans who can barley wipe there asses.

I never said that about scientists. You did though.



Quote:

You think that science is advanced when they actually have religious nonsense in their dogma?

Name one religious notion about evolution. Just one. (Remember, religion deals with the supernatural)


Quote:

You posted links to a f**king site with no evidence and only opinions.

So... Berkley, an ivy league school... is wrong about evolution? AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL... Seriously?

Name what logical fallacy it falls under. I dare you. Here is a hint - It doesn't fall under any fallacious arguments!


Quote:

Mudskippers are fully functioning not transitional fish that can move on land. This is no evidence of any fish that made any transition to become a mudskipper. You fuking idiot!

I'm not the one who claimed that fish can't come out of the ocean and breath on land. The mudskipper can. I didn't claim it evolved. I just corrected your misinformed assumption.


Quote:

Do you understand that you have absolutely no evidence for this statement, yet you believe?  Is it possible for a human to be more stupid than you?  The reason why there is no human evolution shown is because it never happened in evidence. I have looked and looked at all the evidence on this in great detail, yet there is absolutely no evidence for human evolution.

I am starting to wonder about your IQ.. I mean it took me about a week to understand the basic complexities of evolution... and it has taken you 40 years to not even understand the fundamentals of biology.

I have found Evodelusionists to be severely brainwashed, gullible and stupid.  I am sorry but I can only take so much of this garbage in one day.

They think things like Ivy league means "God" to them when it is a politically run institution with victims playing the rolls of teachers and students.

Have any of you actually been to Berkley?  There is no credibility give to any religious institution.  I used to live in the same neighborhood, when I lived in Oakland. 

Quote:

It is a logical fallacy to use the idea that scientists are nothing more than weak and stupid feeble minded humans who can barley wipe there asses.

I never said that about scientists. You did though.


''''''''''''''''''''''=================

Funny.  It is a total logical fallacy to believe humans. Humans are feeble minded (can barely wipe there asses) , weak and fall for bovine garbage all the time.  They make up fantasy nonsense like Evodelusionism and try to call it science when it never follows any form of scientific method.  There is absolutely no performance of the scientific method in the theory of evolution, because you cannot test opinions and fantasy.
They got this garbage in the classroom by brute force and law suits and garbage like that.  It was never accepted into science classes as even plausible, because it has no evidence.

The only thing in this nonsense is belief, and continual victimization of young people like you who are weak and young, and gullible. They force this garbage on you by cultural pressure, peer pressure and young people are all wanting to just be accepted, they are not scientists and are prone to believe the nonsense from the fully brainwashed professors and other students. 

If you want to be free of this garbage, here is a chance for you.

Maelestrom, What is the magical process that causes creatures to break the boundaries of their genetics? 
Where is your absolute, irrefutable evidence, that has no opinions in it.  I do not accept opinions from delusional believers and call that fact. 
Why do you accept religious mystical causes as if they were real?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:17pm:

Maelestrom, What is the magical process that causes creatures to break the boundaries of their genetics?  Where is your absolute, irrefutable evidence, that has no opinions in it.  I do not accept opinions from delusional believers and call that fact.  Why do you accept religious mystical causes as if they were real?

When you CANT disprove the opinions and the evidence found to support the opinions, you have no reason to NOT believe.

Again, if you CANT disprove a theory/statement, what reason do you have for not BELIEVING?  None!

So, where is your proof that evolution is wrong!  Highlighted statements are automatically correct, right?

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:25pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:17pm: Maelestrom, What is the magical process that causes creatures to break the boundaries of their genetics?  Where is your absolute, irrefutable evidence, that has no opinions in it.  I do not accept opinions from delusional believers and call that fact.  Why do you accept religious mystical causes as if they were real? When you CANT disprove the opinions and the evidence found to support the opinions, you have no reason to NOT believe. Again, if you CANT disprove a theory/statement, what reason do you have for not BELIEVING?  None! So, where is your proof that evolution is wrong!  Highlighted statements are automatically correct, right?

Here is you problem.  I don't believe in anything.  I have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control my thinking.  This is how super intelligent people become mentally ill, by accepting irrational nonsense.

In my, now, 42 years, there is nothing in the pyhsical world that shows evolution is even possible.  There is NO evidence for it.
In the 20,000 papers I have read, there are only opinions based on brainwashing in all of them. The actual genetic testing has nothing in common with the conclusions.  The only thing that could cause such a ridiculous conclusion is brainwashing that effects the thoughts of these pseudo scientists.

They have to prove evolution to me, or I have to prove it to myself. So, far with as open of a mind and objective reasoning there is no evidence of any trans formative changes to a set of creatures that equals the belief.

The only thing that counts is the evidence.  I never believe anyone, no matter who they are, there position in life, how many (ass kissing) awards they may have nor anything that seems to be the cause of people believing these idiots.

If you "see evolution", you are only projecting the brainwashing on the evidence.

I am here to help you get to the neutral zone of reality where beliefs don't exist.
I have no beliefs.  I only go with what has been shown to me over and over and over to be true and I never allow anyone to have any effects on the purity of my logic.

Quote:

I don't believe in anything.  I have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control my thinking.

For one, you're egocentric and arrogant. For two, you go about saying that you have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control your thinking... Yet your very definition of evolution is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Evolution doesn't state any of that. All states is that creatures change over time. If you isolate two creatures and they are inflicted with different mutations, they will gradually change over a very very long time. Yet you set yourself up a strawman and you refuse to deviate from the strawman you set up. Why? Because you are having a logical fallacy control your thinking.

Here is a question for you - If evolution wasn't true, where did we come from? Why do chickens have the gene for teeth? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Why do we have appendixes? Human beings are 'far' from perfect and if we were 'designed' then the engineer should be fired. So where did all this come from? You have failed to answer my question whenever I ask it and until you do, I highly doubt I should take you seriously at all.

Asking Goodscienceforyou to answer is pointless, he will retort with his same old ignorant question about proving evolution without opinions, despite empirical data to show it IN ACTION. He wants to feed his ridiculously irrelevant ego (he always assumed he was destined for greatness but is now closer to death than he wants to admit) by starting a cult.
However, he's no David Koresh. He's not even Rael...

He thinks that chimpanzees are a mix of human and gorilla, that at some point in the past a human had sex with a gorilla. Perhaps he thinks it was rape or something...
But... but there'd have to be more than one rape to create an entirely different sub-species so it must've been a concerted effort, by man, to cross-breed. How did he extrapolate this idea? Was ther any empirical evidence with no opinions or beliefs in it? Show us the data, Goodscienceforyou. Oh, you can't, can you... BECAUSE YOU MADE IT UP!
This is beyond stupid and nearly breaks the fabric of reality with its pure, unadulterated ignorance.

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

Quote: I don't believe in anything.  I have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control my thinking. For one, you're egocentric and arrogant. For two, you go about saying that you have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control your thinking... Yet your very definition of evolution is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Evolution doesn't state any of that. All states is that creatures change over time. If you isolate two creatures and they are inflicted with different mutations, they will gradually change over a very very long time. Yet you set yourself up a strawman and you refuse to deviate from the strawman you set up. Why? Because you are having a logical fallacy control your thinking. Here is a question for you - If evolution wasn't true, where did we come from? Why do chickens have the gene for teeth? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Why do we have appendixes? Human beings are 'far' from perfect and if we were 'designed' then the engineer should be fired. So where did all this come from? You have failed to answer my question whenever I ask it and until you do, I highly doubt I should take you seriously at all.

Bear with me.  What you think is the definition is not.  It is how you get sucked into this religion.

As you go along, pretty soon you will see things that are not there too.  Why would you allow others to control you thinking, because you want to trust them.

Chickens have the gene for teeth. Now they don't need them so they adapted.  That is not evolution, because it is still a chicken!  Don't you understand anything I teach?

There are genetic coding in all creatures that have been around for a while, USED for the purpose of surviving as the same creature. This does not create evolution. There are only genealogical trails from the original parent of the species.  There is no trail of any evolution from one creature becoming another and there are no common ancestors, beyond the parents of the genus.   

That means there is no evidence for evolution, and no evidence for creation.
Both need to be removed from public schools because they are both religious.
There are no magical processes, and mystical creatures that never existed.

There is no answer for the diversity of life. It just is.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:32pm:

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 10:16am: Quote: I don't believe in anything.  I have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control my thinking. For one, you're egocentric and arrogant. For two, you go about saying that you have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control your thinking... Yet your very definition of evolution is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Evolution doesn't state any of that. All states is that creatures change over time. If you isolate two creatures and they are inflicted with different mutations, they will gradually change over a very very long time. Yet you set yourself up a strawman and you refuse to deviate from the strawman you set up. Why? Because you are having a logical fallacy control your thinking. Here is a question for you - If evolution wasn't true, where did we come from? Why do chickens have the gene for teeth? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Why do we have appendixes? Human beings are 'far' from perfect and if we were 'designed' then the engineer should be fired. So where did all this come from? You have failed to answer my question whenever I ask it and until you do, I highly doubt I should take you seriously at all. Bear with me.  What you think is the definition is not.  It is how you get sucked into this religion. As you go along, pretty soon you will see things that are not there too.  Why would you allow others to control you thinking, because you want to trust them.

Fist post wayhay!

I'd like you to answer the question. Forget what the trolls say, and give your explanation of our origins.
I too agree that evolution is rubbish, but I'd like to know where you think we come from.

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:37pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:32pm: ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 10:16am: Quote: I don't believe in anything.  I have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control my thinking. For one, you're egocentric and arrogant. For two, you go about saying that you have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control your thinking... Yet your very definition of evolution is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Evolution doesn't state any of that. All states is that creatures change over time. If you isolate two creatures and they are inflicted with different mutations, they will gradually change over a very very long time. Yet you set yourself up a strawman and you refuse to deviate from the strawman you set up. Why? Because you are having a logical fallacy control your thinking. Here is a question for you - If evolution wasn't true, where did we come from? Why do chickens have the gene for teeth? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Why do we have appendixes? Human beings are 'far' from perfect and if we were 'designed' then the engineer should be fired. So where did all this come from? You have failed to answer my question whenever I ask it and until you do, I highly doubt I should take you seriously at all. Bear with me.  What you think is the definition is not.  It is how you get sucked into this religion. As you go along, pretty soon you will see things that are not there too.  Why would you allow others to control you thinking, because you want to trust them. Fist post wayhay! I'd like you to answer the question. Forget what the trolls say, and give your explanation of our origins. I too agree that evolution is rubbish, but I'd like to know where you think we come from.

Hey! You edited your post! That's not fair...

skintube wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 3:12pm:

Asking Goodscienceforyou to answer is pointless, he will retort with his same old ignorant question about proving evolution without opinions, despite empirical data to show it IN ACTION. He wants to feed his ridiculously irrelevant ego (he always assumed he was destined for greatness but is now closer to death than he wants to admit) by starting a cult. However, he's no David Koresh. He's not even Rael... He thinks that chimpanzees are a mix of human and gorilla, that at some point in the past a human had sex with a gorilla. Perhaps he thinks it was rape or something... But... but there'd have to be more than one rape to create an entirely different sub-species so it must've been a concerted effort, by man, to cross-breed. How did he extrapolate this idea? Was ther any empirical evidence with no opinions or beliefs in it? Show us the data, Goodscienceforyou. Oh, you can't, can you... BECAUSE YOU MADE IT UP! This is beyond stupid and nearly breaks the fabric of reality with its pure, unadulterated ignorance.

This is all straw man nonsense.  I think I am going to ban you for this. We do not allow you to lie about what I teach.

I do not believe that chimps came from breeding apes and humans, but it is a far more logical answer to the DNA, Chromosomes, and the ERV's propagated in the primates.
It is the only premise that actually follows the evidence.

I have presented this to now 6 PHD's in genetics and they cannot refute it, because it is 100% plausible.

I don't believe anything that does not have absolute evidence.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:

skintube wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 3:12pm: Asking Goodscienceforyou to answer is pointless, he will retort with his same old ignorant question about proving evolution without opinions, despite empirical data to show it IN ACTION. He wants to feed his ridiculously irrelevant ego (he always assumed he was destined for greatness but is now closer to death than he wants to admit) by starting a cult. However, he's no David Koresh. He's not even Rael... He thinks that chimpanzees are a mix of human and gorilla, that at some point in the past a human had sex with a gorilla. Perhaps he thinks it was rape or something... But... but there'd have to be more than one rape to create an entirely different sub-species so it must've been a concerted effort, by man, to cross-breed. How did he extrapolate this idea? Was ther any empirical evidence with no opinions or beliefs in it? Show us the data, Goodscienceforyou. Oh, you can't, can you... BECAUSE YOU MADE IT UP! This is beyond stupid and nearly breaks the fabric of reality with its pure, unadulterated ignorance. This is all straw man nonsense.  I think I am going to ban you for this. We do not allow you to lie about what I teach. I do not believe that chimps came from breeding apes and humans, but it is a far more logical answer to the DNA, Chromosomes, and the ERV's propagated in the primates. It is the only premise that actually follows the evidence. I have presented this to now 6 PHD's in genetics and they cannot refute it, because it is 100% plausible. I don't believe anything that does not have absolute evidence.

Not to be picky and all, but he says you 'think', not you 'believe' - a seroius distinction. Isn't a strawman argument when you argue against a position that the other isn't arguing about? That was a rhetorical question and it doesn't require an answer - I've read 4 threads here so far and there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense.
I take it from the above highligted sentences that you do think that, yes? If you do think that, what data are you using to come to that concluson? You say it's logical, how is it logical?

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:40pm:

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:37pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:32pm: ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 10:16am: Quote: I don't believe in anything.  I have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control my thinking. For one, you're egocentric and arrogant. For two, you go about saying that you have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control your thinking... Yet your very definition of evolution is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Evolution doesn't state any of that. All states is that creatures change over time. If you isolate two creatures and they are inflicted with different mutations, they will gradually change over a very very long time. Yet you set yourself up a strawman and you refuse to deviate from the strawman you set up. Why? Because you are having a logical fallacy control your thinking. Here is a question for you - If evolution wasn't true, where did we come from? Why do chickens have the gene for teeth? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Why do we have appendixes? Human beings are 'far' from perfect and if we were 'designed' then the engineer should be fired. So where did all this come from? You have failed to answer my question whenever I ask it and until you do, I highly doubt I should take you seriously at all. Bear with me.  What you think is the definition is not.  It is how you get sucked into this religion. As you go along, pretty soon you will see things that are not there too.  Why would you allow others to control you thinking, because you want to trust them. Fist post wayhay! I'd like you to answer the question. Forget what the trolls say, and give your explanation of our origins. I too agree that evolution is rubbish, but I'd like to know where you think we come from. Hey! You edited your post! That's not fair...

The "evidence" for creation is implied, but since you can never see it happening, or I have never seen any creature appear from nothing, we can assume that it is not scientific at this point in time.

Because there is absolutely no evidence for evolution or life coming from nothing, that too can be left out of the science books.

When we have a time machine, we can go back and watch to see if these creatures just popped up, or they were brought here from another planet, and they were built from chemicals on the other planet. We have no idea, and we do not have to tools to prove any of it.

I do not care if anyone believes in Evodelusion, or Creation, as long as non scientific things are removed from science.

There is no absolute evidence for either Evolution nor Creation, because both are based on faith and belief. There certainly is no obvious proof of either.

The Evodelusionists think that because chickens have genes for teeth that now proves that chickens evolved from fish. That is how stupid this projection of belief becomes.

At least with most creationists they admit they operate on faith and belief, making them far more honest.  It is when they try to prove faith and belief they get into trouble.  Just like the Evodelusionists, when they try to call evolution as fact, when there are no facts to support the belief.

I have looked for 42 years as one of my many studies on life, and there is for sure no proof of evolution. That means that Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT PROVEN.

It is interesting to read the Bible, especially now with all this crap coming down that fits with what is written.  I just set back and watch and witness life. I do not take on beliefs without evidence. Beliefs with no evidence is religious.

Knowledge is what is obvious and is clearly self evident.

When people start dying like crazy all over the earth, then we can have more faith in the prophesy.  Until then all you can do is set back and watch.

God = Truth

If you are not seeking the truth, then you are not seeking to know God.

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:50pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:43pm: skintube wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 3:12pm: Asking Goodscienceforyou to answer is pointless, he will retort with his same old ignorant question about proving evolution without opinions, despite empirical data to show it IN ACTION. He wants to feed his ridiculously irrelevant ego (he always assumed he was destined for greatness but is now closer to death than he wants to admit) by starting a cult. However, he's no David Koresh. He's not even Rael... He thinks that chimpanzees are a mix of human and gorilla, that at some point in the past a human had sex with a gorilla. Perhaps he thinks it was rape or something... But... but there'd have to be more than one rape to create an entirely different sub-species so it must've been a concerted effort, by man, to cross-breed. How did he extrapolate this idea? Was ther any empirical evidence with no opinions or beliefs in it? Show us the data, Goodscienceforyou. Oh, you can't, can you... BECAUSE YOU MADE IT UP! This is beyond stupid and nearly breaks the fabric of reality with its pure, unadulterated ignorance. This is all straw man nonsense.  I think I am going to ban you for this. We do not allow you to lie about what I teach. I do not believe that chimps came from breeding apes and humans, but it is a far more logical answer to the DNA, Chromosomes, and the ERV's propagated in the primates. It is the only premise that actually follows the evidence. I have presented this to now 6 PHD's in genetics and they cannot refute it, because it is 100% plausible. I don't believe anything that does not have absolute evidence. Not to be picky and all, but he says you 'think', not you 'believe' - a seroius distinction. Isn't a strawman argument when you argue against a position that the other isn't arguing about? That was a rhetorical question and it doesn't require an answer - I've read 4 threads here so far and there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense. I take it from the above highligted sentences that you do think that, yes? If you do think that, what data are you using to come to that concluson? You say it's logical, how is it logical?

If you were to study genetics and human nature, and the physical evidence for how long Chimps have existed (which is about 4000 years by all the evidence I have read) there is only in science facts and no magical causes. That is how the  universe was made.  How the laws of physics, genetics, and how life goes on.

This is a hypothesis, that required me to study and find that bestiality was common in ancient cultures.  There was no Bible, no Koran, no Yoga Sutras, before then, there were no morals in many cultures. There are sculptures of bestiality on the sides of ancient buildings as if it was normal, back then.

I then studied all I could find on Chimps, including all their behavior, the fossils and the artifacts. The fossils dated by the radiometric dating system are never to be recognized as fact. The whole radiometric dating beyond 10 to 20,000 years is worthless and based on assumptions that have no evidence nor proof of even being proper science.  There are way to many variables to make any conclusions. But with shorter time periods, it seems to work, because we can calibrate by the approximations of written history.

There exists one chimp fossil. That makes me realize that chimps have not been around for very long. It is a logical fallacy for something that is millions of years old to not have any fossils. But a few thousand years, one fossil would make sense.

If you look at the genetic evidence, ERV's, DNA, Chromosomes it logically fits that Chimps came from some breeding with "animals" and humans, when those animals and those humans had genetic closeness.  Genetic closeness does not mean they came from the same genealogical  lineage either. That is an assumption that Evodelusionists always make, because it fits their religion.

This hypothesis, completely destroys the idea of common ancestor of humans and chimps and any primate, even the Neanderthals are more chimp than human, indicating a propogation of the offspring from mating. The ERV's concur.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257966781

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:56pm:

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:40pm: CreationIst wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:37pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:32pm: ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 10:16am: Quote: I don't believe in anything.  I have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control my thinking. For one, you're egocentric and arrogant. For two, you go about saying that you have too much mental capacity to allow any logical fallacies to control your thinking... Yet your very definition of evolution is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Evolution doesn't state any of that. All states is that creatures change over time. If you isolate two creatures and they are inflicted with different mutations, they will gradually change over a very very long time. Yet you set yourself up a strawman and you refuse to deviate from the strawman you set up. Why? Because you are having a logical fallacy control your thinking. Here is a question for you - If evolution wasn't true, where did we come from? Why do chickens have the gene for teeth? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Why do we have appendixes? Human beings are 'far' from perfect and if we were 'designed' then the engineer should be fired. So where did all this come from? You have failed to answer my question whenever I ask it and until you do, I highly doubt I should take you seriously at all. Bear with me.  What you think is the definition is not.  It is how you get sucked into this religion. As you go along, pretty soon you will see things that are not there too.  Why would you allow others to control you thinking, because you want to trust them. Fist post wayhay! I'd like you to answer the question. Forget what the trolls say, and give your explanation of our origins. I too agree that evolution is rubbish, but I'd like to know where you think we come from. Hey! You edited your post! That's not fair... The "evidence" for creation is implied, but since you can never see it happening, or I have never seen any creature appear from nothing, we can assume that it is not scientific at this point in time.

Oh right. It's my understanding that, well when I've argued with scientists before, that the argument that something appears from nothing is a strawman because no self-respecting biologist or whatever would say that.
Are you sying that because you personally haven't seen it it doesn't exist? How can we assume it's not scientific? Man, you're really confusing.

Quote:

Because there is absolutely no evidence for evolution or life coming from nothing, that too can be left out of the science books.

Well I agree that evolution is far from proven, but again, they donj't say that everything came from nothing - why are you arguing that point?


Quote:

When we have a time machine, we can go back and watch to see if these creatures just popped up, or they were brought here from another planet, and they were built from chemicals on the other planet. We have no idea, and we do not have to tools to prove any of it.

Well, yes but that doesn't tell me anything except that you're willing to possibly accept alien intervention as a likely possibility. I suspect we'll never be able to prove THAT hypothesis :D :D


Quote:

I do not care if anyone believes in Evodelusion, or Creation, as long as non scientific things are removed from science.

But you've got this forum and a youtube channel, and I read here that you've asked numerous people to debate the topic with you and sent your theories to 6 PHD's. See what I mean when I say it's confusing? You say one thing on this thread, then something else to back up a different claim on another thread. It's hard to follow, if you follow.

Quote:

There is no absolute evidence for either Evolution nor Creation, because both are based on faith and belief. There certainly is no obvious proof of either.

I can agree with that. I think.

Quote:

The Evodelusionists think that because chickens have genes for teeth that now proves that chickens evolved from fish. That is how stupid this projection of belief becomes.

I don't think that's how it works...


Quote:

At least with most creationists they admit they operate on faith and belief, making them far more honest.  It is when they try to prove faith and belief they get into trouble.  Just like the Evodelusionists, when they try to call evolution as fact, when there are no facts to support the belief.

There may not be facts, but there is certainly data - Creationists also have access to this data, but have different conclusions.

Quote:

I have looked for 42 years as one of my many studies on life, and there is for sure no proof of evolution. That means that Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT PROVEN.

Well don't be offended, but I hold my own quorum on such things.


Quote:

It is interesting to read the Bible, especially now with all this crap coming down that fits with what is written.  I just set back and watch and witness life. I do not take on beliefs without evidence. Beliefs with no evidence is religious.

I don't know what you're saying here either. Prophesy is coming true? I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not sure if this is what you're saying.

Quote:

Knowledge is what is obvious and is clearly self evident.

To be quite honest, this isn't my definition of knowledge.

Quote:

When people start dying like crazy all over the earth, then we can have more faith in the prophesy.  Until then all you can do is set back and watch. God = Truth If you are not seeking the truth, then you are not seeking to know God.

I have a personal relationship with God. :)

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 6:11pm:

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:50pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:43pm: skintube wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 3:12pm: Asking Goodscienceforyou to answer is pointless, he will retort with his same old ignorant question about proving evolution without opinions, despite empirical data to show it IN ACTION. He wants to feed his ridiculously irrelevant ego (he always assumed he was destined for greatness but is now closer to death than he wants to admit) by starting a cult. However, he's no David Koresh. He's not even Rael... He thinks that chimpanzees are a mix of human and gorilla, that at some point in the past a human had sex with a gorilla. Perhaps he thinks it was rape or something... But... but there'd have to be more than one rape to create an entirely different sub-species so it must've been a concerted effort, by man, to cross-breed. How did he extrapolate this idea? Was ther any empirical evidence with no opinions or beliefs in it? Show us the data, Goodscienceforyou. Oh, you can't, can you... BECAUSE YOU MADE IT UP! This is beyond stupid and nearly breaks the fabric of reality with its pure, unadulterated ignorance. This is all straw man nonsense.  I think I am going to ban you for this. We do not allow you to lie about what I teach. I do not believe that chimps came from breeding apes and humans, but it is a far more logical answer to the DNA, Chromosomes, and the ERV's propagated in the primates. It is the only premise that actually follows the evidence. I have presented this to now 6 PHD's in genetics and they cannot refute it, because it is 100% plausible. I don't believe anything that does not have absolute evidence. Not to be picky and all, but he says you 'think', not you 'believe' - a seroius distinction. Isn't a strawman argument when you argue against a position that the other isn't arguing about? That was a rhetorical question and it doesn't require an answer - I've read 4 threads here so far and there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense. I take it from the above highligted sentences that you do think that, yes? If you do think that, what data are you using to come to that concluson? You say it's logical, how is it logical? If you were to study genetics and human nature, and the physical evidence for how long Chimps have existed (which is about 4000 years by all the evidence I have read) there is only in science facts and no magical causes. That is how the  universe was made.  How the laws of physics, genetics, and how life goes on.

4000 years? Wow. I had no idea.

Quote:

This is a hypothesis, that required me to study and find that bestiality was common in ancient cultures.  There was no Bible, no Koran, no Yoga Sutras, before then, there were no morals in many cultures.

Sorry, but this is just not true. There weren't copies of the New testament, sure, but there certainly were religious texts 4000 years ago.
Quote:

There are sculptures of bestiality on the sides of ancient buildings as if it was normal, back then.

Can you refer me to some?

Quote:

I then studied all I could find on Chimps, including all their behavior, the fossils and the artifacts.

The chimps left artefacts or people left artifacts depicting the birth? Can you point me towards some of these too please? This is amazing stuff.

Quote:

The fossils dated by the radiometric dating system are never to be recognized as fact. The whole radiometric dating beyond 10 to 20,000 years is worthless and based on assumptions that have no evidence nor proof of even being proper science.

But we're talking about 4000 years ago, not 10 or 20. I don't really care about radiocarbon dating, I'm more interested in the artifacts depicting bestiality from that period. 
Quote:

There are way to many variables to make any conclusions. But with shorter time periods, it seems to work, because we can calibrate by the approximations of written history.

So are there chimp remains from a period before 4000 years ago? According to the radiocarbon dating people, that is.


Quote:

There exists one chimp fossil. That makes me realize that chimps have not been around for very long.

That's an assumption isn't it?

Quote:

It is a logical fallacy for something that is millions of years old to not have any fossils.

Is it, though? I don't understand the field, but I do know that this type of dating isn't used for periods of time that distant. Also, isn't fossilization really rare?
Quote:

But a few thousand years, one fossil would make sense.

I guess...


Quote:

If you look at the genetic evidence, ERV's, DNA, Chromosomes it logically fits that Chimps came from some breeding with "animals" and humans, when those animals and those humans had genetic closeness.  Genetic closeness does not mean they came from the same genealogical  lineage either. That is an assumption that Evodelusionists always make, because it fits their religion.

Wait, this is even more confusing. Are you saying that we could, in theory, have intercourse with an ape and it would produce offspring?

Quote:

This hypothesis, completely destroys the idea of common ancestor of humans and chimps and any primate, even the Neanderthals are more chimp than human, indicating a prorogation of the offspring from mating. The ERV's concur.

So Neanderthals who I remember are supposed to be no younger than 30,000 years old are the ones likely to have impregnated the apes or that the Neanderthals are the progeny of Man and Ape?


Quote:

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257966781

This is one rollercoaster of a topic!

Religious rules were not fully in the human culture back then, and some cultures incorporated this act in their culture.

I would post a photo of this but it isn't something I want on my forum.

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:

4000 years? Wow. I had no idea.

Of course you didn't, because it's nonsense. The correct scientific information is that chimpanzees separated from humans about 6 million years ago.


Quote:

The fossils dated by the radiometric dating system are never to be recognized as fact. The whole radiometric dating beyond 10 to 20,000 years is worthless and based on assumptions that have no evidence nor proof of even being proper science.

More nonsense. The half-life of various isotopes is measurable, and the proportion of the remaining isotope to the decay product is also measurable, allowing us to calculate the age to within a certain error factor. I acknowledge that the error factor exists, but what's 1 million years plus or minus when the age being calculated is 50 million years?


Quote:

So are there chimp remains from a period before 4000 years ago? According to the radiocarbon dating people, that is.

Yes. The first fossil chimpanzee found was dated to be between 200 thousand years to 700 thousand years ago. (According to http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04008.html)


Quote:

[quote]There exists one chimp fossil. That makes me realize that chimps have not been around for very long.

That's an assumption isn't it? [/quote]

Yes, yes it is.


Quote:

It is a logical fallacy for something that is millions of years old to not have any fossils.

Is it, though? I don't understand the field, but I do know that this type of dating isn't used for periods of time that distant. Also, isn't fossilization really rare?
Quote:

But a few thousand years, one fossil would make sense.

I guess...


Quote:

If you look at the genetic evidence, ERV's, DNA, Chromosomes it logically fits that Chimps came from some breeding with "animals" and humans

Wow, what a whopper. You're going to have to back that one up with some specific ERV placements and genome comparisons.


Quote:

Wait, this is even more confusing. Are you saying that we could, in theory, have intercourse with an ape and it would produce offspring?

He's saying it, but he's full of garbage, because such a copulation could not produce fertile offspring - and if he wants to claim that chimps came from such a crossbreeding, fertility is a necessity.


Quote:

This is one rollercoaster of a topic!

I'd suggest you get off this ride. There may yet be valid challenges to the theory of evolution, but you won't get them from this guy.

Quote:

It is a logical fallacy for something that is millions of years old to not have any fossils.

Is it, though? I don't understand the field, but I do know that this type of dating isn't used for periods of time that distant. Also, isn't fossilization really rare?
Quote:

But a few thousand years, one fossil would make sense.

I guess...[/quote]

Wish I could edit my post... the block above should have been excluded from my reply.

Scriptures were localized back that far.

Chimps use tools, and make weapons. It is, as far as I know the only primate that does that. The artifacts were tools.

Fossilization nomally and most easily takes place by watering holes.  Water, acids and minerals will make fossils.

We have 88% of the non bird vertibrates as living fossils. That means we have fossils on nearly 90% of the creatures now living, and none of those fossils show much difference in the morphology of the now living version.  That shows that fossilization is common on ground living vertebrates.

It would be purely logical to make the deduction that if there is only one fossil of a Chimp, and Chimps even bathe in water holes and live next to them, that only one fossil would show up if they are millions of years old?

The use of radiometric dating is just atrocious.  If you fall in the ground today, in a watering hole, and you fossilize in 1000 years, when our pseudo scientists dig you up as a rock, they would date you at millions of years old, because they date the ground you fell in. Isn't that the most ridiculous thing to realize? These people are doing this on all replacement fossils. So, we know for sure, these methods are nearly worthless.

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

Goodscience - Since you fail to comprehend how to look on the forums aside from this one.. Here.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1263861296

And btw, they date both the fossil and the ground around you. They don't just say the fossil is so and so years old depending on the ground around you..

For instance, they find the 'strata' and match the specific strata with what fossils are found within the strata. The lower we get in the strata, the less complex the organisms get.

Now please answer my question. What would YOU CONSIDER as EVIDENCE to be considered EVIDENCE for evolution? Give me an example of something that you would conclude as evidence for the theory.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 6:44pm:

CreationIst wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 6:34pm: 4000 years? Wow. I had no idea. Of course you didn't, because it's nonsense. The correct scientific information is that chimpanzees separated from humans about 6 million years ago.[/quote/] This is utter nonsense! and funny as hell.  You have ONEand only one Chimp fossil and from that you can conclude some mystical ancestor that never existed. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of humans being the parent of Chimps. And the rest suggest that the ERV's from humans passed through the entire primate "family".  If you can't see that, then you need to think some more about the nonsense and brainwashing that you never look at any other plausibilities because you are brainwashed into this crap belief. Quote: The fossils dated by the radiometric dating system are never to be recognized as fact. The whole radiometric dating beyond 10 to 20,000 years is worthless and based on assumptions that have no evidence nor proof of even being proper science. More nonsense. The half-life of various isotopes is measurable, and the proportion of the remaining isotope to the decay product is also measurable, allowing us to calculate the age to within a certain error factor. I acknowledge that the error factor exists, but what's 1 million years plus or minus when the age being calculated is 50 million years? [quote] 1/ Prove the date that these isotopes were made? Prove that the conditions on earth have always been the same, forever? 2/ Measuring the ground that a fossil is found in is never going to equal the age of the original bones.  That is a logical fallacy, that stands out like a sore thumb, to those who still have their objective reason.  It would be the same as dating the minerals in a rock tomb and saying the fellow in the tomb is as old as the tomb rocks. http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257524945 [quote]So are there chimp remains from a period before 4000 years ago? According to the radiocarbon dating people, that is.

Yes. The first fossil chimpanzee found was dated to be between 200 thousand years to 700 thousand years ago. (According to http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04008.html)


Quote:

[quote]There exists one chimp fossil. That makes me realize that chimps have not been around for very long.

That's an assumption isn't it? [/quote]

Yes, yes it is.


Quote:

It is a logical fallacy for something that is millions of years old to not have any fossils.

Is it, though? I don't understand the field, but I do know that this type of dating isn't used for periods of time that distant. Also, isn't fossilization really rare?
Quote:

But a few thousand years, one fossil would make sense.

I guess...


Quote:

If you look at the genetic evidence, ERV's, DNA, Chromosomes it logically fits that Chimps came from some breeding with "animals" and humans

Wow, what a whopper. You're going to have to back that one up with some specific ERV placements and genome comparisons.


Quote:

Wait, this is even more confusing. Are you saying that we could, in theory, have intercourse with an ape and it would produce offspring?

Not today. But when the DNA and the Chromosomes line up it is fully plausible. The fusion of number 2 chromosome in humans fills in that blank.  They have already proven that if you study the DNA and the Chromosomes of separate creatures you can determine if they can breed. This is clear in the DNA, Chromosomes of humans and Chimps before the fusion of # 2 chromosomes.  It is purely logical and obvious, but like anything from that time, we cannot prove any of it.
However, it has no mystical causes and magical processes involved in this hypothesis and it destroys the "common ancestor" delusional fantasy crap that Evodelusionists believe in their religion.


Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 6:44pm:

He's saying it, but he's full of feculence, because such a copulation could not produce fertile offspring - and if he wants to claim that chimps came from such a crossbreeding, fertility is a necessity. Quote: This is one rollercoaster of a topic! I'd suggest you get off this ride. There may yet be valid challenges to the theory of evolution, but you won't get them from this guy.

Unfortunately you have to deal with brainwashed people who will believe anything that is popular religious belief. If you want to get free of this crap religion of nonsense Evodelusionism and be a free thinker that only looks at the evidence, then I am your best bet. I have not met or read anyone who can do what I do as well as I do it.

I do not believe anything that is not absolutely proven.

So when I say it is a far greater and much more plausible hypothesis on the DNA, ERV, Chromosome evidence between the primates and humans that destroys the belief in magical and mystical common ancestors you know these religious Evodelusonism fanatics are going to squeal and try to discredit me.

The sad thing is that I am just trying to straighten out this crap belief and get it out of my science. I don' get paid to do this.  This comes from wanting to help humanity. To help you to cure diseases and not make bad drugs based on poor assumption that have no basis in fact.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 7:14pm:

Fossilization nomally and most easily takes place by watering holes.  Water, acids and minerals will make fossils.

Not true. Fossilization occurs when an organism is buried by sediments. Wet areas such as marshy shores of watering holes will usually result in bones rotting rather than fossilizing.

Goodscience - I wish you would stop ignoring me and acting childish to my question. I really really want my question asked. WHAT would you consider as being acceptable evidence? Please give me an example!!!

Woops - My question answered* Sorry

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:17pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 7:14pm: Fossilization nomally and most easily takes place by watering holes.  Water, acids and minerals will make fossils. Not true. Fossilization occurs when an organism is buried by sediments. Wet areas such as marshy shores of watering holes will usually result in bones rotting rather than fossilizing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145721/
This link proves one of your lies.

Even the hobbit was found in a well.
Who is teaching you this garbage?

Quote:

Not true. Fossilization occurs when an organism is buried by sediments. Wet areas such as marshy shores of watering holes will usually result in bones rotting rather than fossilizing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't tar also cause fossilization?

"The first-ever chimpanzee fossils were recently discovered in an area previously thought to be unsuitable for chimps. Fossils from human ancestors were also found nearby."

It would seem logical that "father" and "child" would be in the same location.

So far, ALL of the evidence strongly suggest interbreeding.
Every darn bit of the evidence aligns to this hypothesis.

Quote:

The first-ever chimpanzee fossils were recently discovered in an area previously thought to be unsuitable for chimps. Fossils from human ancestors were also found nearby. Although researchers have only found a few chimp teeth, the discovery could cause a shake-up in the theories of human evolution. “We know today if you go to western and central Africa that humans and chimps live in similar and neighboring environments,” said Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist at the California Academy of Sciences. “This is the first evidence in the fossil record that they coexisted in the same place in the past.”

They found 'only' chimp teeth. I wonder why the scientists never considered the possibility that tribal shamans often kept the teeth of various animals for specific rituals... All that proves is that teeth were found in the possession of tribal humans.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:15pm:

Not today. But when the DNA and the Chromosomes line up it is fully plausible. The fusion of number 2 chromosome in humans fills in that blank.  They have already proven that if you study the DNA and the Chromosomes of separate creatures you can determine if they can breed. This is clear in the DNA, Chromosomes of humans and Chimps before the fusion of # 2 chromosomes.  It is purely logical and obvious, but like anything from that time, we cannot prove any of it. However, it has no mystical causes and magical processes involved in this hypothesis and it destroys the "common ancestor" delusional fantasy crap that Evodelusionists believe in their religion.

Your "explanation" - in quotes because it is completely lacking in substance - has more magical processes involved than anything the theory of evolution suggests. At least all of the processes in the theory of evolution have a basis in chemistry.


Quote:

Unfortunately you have to deal with brainwashed people who will believe anything that is popular religious belief.

And the rest of us have to deal with your brainwashed crap.


Quote:

If you want to get free of this crap religion of nonsense Evodelusionism and be a free thinker that only looks at the evidence, then I am your best bet. I have not met or read anyone who can do what I do as well as I do it.

Because you're the only one who believes the nonsense that you spout. You may be the best at telling people about what you believe, but what you're telling people has very little to do with reality.


Quote:

I do not believe anything that is not absolutely proven.

That is demonstrably false... unless you mean "absolutely proven to you, whether the rest of the world thinks it's proven or not" - which makes it a belief.


Quote:

So when I say it is a far greater and much more plausible hypothesis on the DNA, ERV, Chromosome evidence between the primates and humans that destroys the belief in magical and mystical common ancestors you know these religious Evodelusonism fanatics are going to squeal and try to discredit me.

You discredit yourself every time you open your mouth. If you want this bestiality hypothesis to be accepted, you'll have to provide a much better explanation of the evidence than the handwaving you've done here.


Quote:

The sad thing is that I am just trying to straighten out this crap belief and get it out of my science. I don' get paid to do this.  This comes from wanting to help humanity. To help you to cure diseases and not make bad drugs based on poor assumption that have no basis in fact.

How does your interpretation improve our ability to make drugs and cure diseases? The Theory of Evolution is doing quite well at solving many diseases today...

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:18pm:

Goodscience - I wish you would stop ignoring me and acting childish to my question. I really really want my question asked. WHAT would you consider as being acceptable evidence? Please give me an example!!!

This thread is far more active.

Physical evidence that can be verified and is neutral and not tainted by belief.
When you realize as I did when I was 16 years old that "fuddy duddy" believers in Evodelusionism were in charge of  the evidence, and they have no way of knowing anything about those creatures in any way that permanently discredits paleontology as a real science.

It is only when you have DNA evidence that is studied by real scientist that you can attach any lineage to any genealogy of any species.

If you have no obvious evidence then it is nonsense.

All the conjecture by experts is nonsense, until you have a way to verify absolutely any of their nonsense.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:19pm:

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 8:17pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 7:14pm: Fossilization nomally and most easily takes place by watering holes.  Water, acids and minerals will make fossils. Not true. Fossilization occurs when an organism is buried by sediments. Wet areas such as marshy shores of watering holes will usually result in bones rotting rather than fossilizing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145721/ This link proves one of your lies. Even the hobbit was found in a well. Who is teaching you this feculence?

From that article:

"One of the more frustrating aspects of paleontology is that full skeletons are very infrequently preserved — especially in jungle environments, where soil acidity and scavengers destroy or eat bones that could otherwise become fossils."

and (note the emphasis):

"Half a million years ago, the Rift Valley was likely more moist and wooded than it is today. But since that time, the lake shore that the chimps and other animals called home has dried up, creating conditions good for preserving fossils."

Who is teaching you this garbage?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:32pm:

All the conjecture by experts is nonsense

Whereas the conjecture by you, that also has no evidence to back it up is... what, exactly?  Oh, that's right!  nonsense!

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:26pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 8:15pm: Not today. But when the DNA and the Chromosomes line up it is fully plausible. The fusion of number 2 chromosome in humans fills in that blank.  They have already proven that if you study the DNA and the Chromosomes of separate creatures you can determine if they can breed. This is clear in the DNA, Chromosomes of humans and Chimps before the fusion of # 2 chromosomes.  It is purely logical and obvious, but like anything from that time, we cannot prove any of it. However, it has no mystical causes and magical processes involved in this hypothesis and it destroys the "common ancestor" delusional fantasy crap that Evodelusionists believe in their religion. Your "explanation" - in quotes because it is completely lacking in substance - has more magical processes involved than anything the theory of evolution suggests. At least all of the processes in the theory of evolution have a basis in chemistry. Quote: Unfortunately you have to deal with brainwashed people who will believe anything that is popular religious belief. And the rest of us have to deal with your brainwashed crap. [quote] If you want to get free of this crap religion of nonsense Evodelusionism and be a free thinker that only looks at the evidence, then I am your best bet. I have not met or read anyone who can do what I do as well as I do it.

Because you're the only one who believes the nonsense that you spout. You may be the best at telling people about what you believe, but what you're telling people has very little to do with reality.


Quote:

I do not believe anything that is not absolutely proven.

That is demonstrably false... unless you mean "absolutely proven to you, whether the rest of the world thinks it's proven or not" - which makes it a belief.


Quote:

So when I say it is a far greater and much more plausible hypothesis on the DNA, ERV, Chromosome evidence between the primates and humans that destroys the belief in magical and mystical common ancestors you know these religious Evodelusonism fanatics are going to squeal and try to discredit me.

You discredit yourself every time you open your mouth. If you want this bestiality hypothesis to be accepted, you'll have to provide a much better explanation of the evidence than the handwaving you've done here.


Quote:

The sad thing is that I am just trying to straighten out this crap belief and get it out of my science. I don' get paid to do this.  This comes from wanting to help humanity. To help you to cure diseases and not make bad drugs based on poor assumption that have no basis in fact.

How does your interpretation improve our ability to make drugs and cure diseases? The Theory of Evolution is doing quite well at solving many diseases today... [/quote]

Maybe you should try becomming a scientist for a change, instead of only projecting your delusional beliefs on evidence.  That would be a good start.

I found all the evidence for my hypothesis over a period of less than one year.

Why can't you do the same thing?  Could it be that you don't want to lose your faith, and belief in these weak humans who did this to you?

Goodscience - Answer my g'damn f**king question! I hate being ignored! WHAT CLASSIFIES AS EVIDENCE IN YOUR EYES? WHAT COULD WE PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT WOULD PROVE EVOLUTION TO YOU!!! COME UP WITH A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE! THANK YOU.


f**ks sake.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:33pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 8:19pm: Dabeer wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 8:17pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 7:14pm: Fossilization nomally and most easily takes place by watering holes.  Water, acids and minerals will make fossils. Not true. Fossilization occurs when an organism is buried by sediments. Wet areas such as marshy shores of watering holes will usually result in bones rotting rather than fossilizing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145721/ This link proves one of your lies. Even the hobbit was found in a well. Who is teaching you this feculence? From that article: "One of the more frustrating aspects of paleontology is that full skeletons are very infrequently preserved — especially in jungle environments, where soil acidity and scavengers destroy or eat bones that could otherwise become fossils." and (note the emphasis): "Half a million years ago, the Rift Valley was likely more moist and wooded than it is today. But since that time, the lake shore that the chimps and other animals called home has dried up, creating conditions good for preserving fossils." Who is teaching you this feculence?

I always disregard the dating methods used, because from all the fossils we have we can see that there is a mess of conflicting data. That is because this method of dating the dirt the fossil is found is IS NEVER the same as dating the actual bones, because the bones just happen to fall in 540,000 year old ground, does not make the bones that old.

What is the matter with your logic?

Go listen to all the videos, read all the articles and go research this yourself.

If you don't listen to and fully understand what is in all of these thougths and facts, then you are not honest.
If you only get your information from the people who brainwashed you, then you are a fraud.

You need to start thinking instead of kissing the ass of any dumb as believer whom you sold your mind to.

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

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:37pm:

Maybe you should try becomming a scientist for a change, instead of only projecting your delusional beliefs on evidence.  That would be a good start.

... I AM a scientist, thank you. Not a biologist, I confess... but a scientist all the same.


Quote:

I found all the evidence for my hypothesis over a period of less than one year.

You should try looking at the rest of the evidence, including the part that renders your hypothesis complete nonsense. But then again, I shouldn't say that, as you have yet to present all of the specific details of your hypothesis.


Quote:

Why can't you do the same thing?  Could it be that you don't want to lose your faith, and belief in these weak humans who did this to you?

Nobody did anything to me. I did the research on my own, and followed that evidence to the only logical conclusion.

The bottom line here is that 90% (and that's a conservative estimate) of what you say is completely out of touch with reality. You have a completely ridiculous concept of what evolution is and what the Theory of Evolution actually predicts, and for all that you claim neutrality you are obviously completely biased against evolution. There really is no point in continuing to debate with you, as there can be no meaningful debate without a consensus on the definitions of the topics being debated.

Peace.

"And the rest of us have to deal with your brainwashed crap."

I am the un-brainwasher, the un-programmer, the de-indoctrinator.

I teach people to seek the truth in the matter and to see what is obvious and when all the thousands of pieces fit, like the DNA, ERV, and Chromosome evidence for mating of humans and some animal and you keep finding corroboration, over and over and over, then you realize that Evodelusionist are lost. When all the evidence does not require any twisted logic and magical thinking, mystical creatures and other nonsense, then you are seeing with clean eyes.

When you wear the brainwashed, delusional glasses of belief not founded on any evidence, you are f**ked when you think it is real.

Goodscience - You can answer more than one post at a time so answer mine. WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. PLEASE PROVIDE A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:47pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 8:37pm: Maybe you should try becomming a scientist for a change, instead of only projecting your delusional beliefs on evidence.  That would be a good start. ... I AM a scientist, thank you. Not a biologist, I confess... but a scientist all the same. Quote: I found all the evidence for my hypothesis over a period of less than one year. You should try looking at the rest of the evidence, including the part that renders your hypothesis complete nonsense. But then again, I shouldn't say that, as you have yet to present all of the specific details of your hypothesis. [quote]Why can't you do the same thing?  Could it be that you don't want to lose your faith, and belief in these weak humans who did this to you?

Nobody did anything to me. I did the research on my own, and followed that evidence to the only logical conclusion.

The bottom line here is that 90% (and that's a conservative estimate) of what you say is completely out of touch with reality. You have a completely ridiculous concept of what evolution is and what the Theory of Evolution actually predicts, and for all that you claim neutrality you are obviously completely biased against evolution. There really is no point in continuing to debate with you, as there can be no meaningful debate without a consensus on the definitions of the topics being debated.

Peace.[/quote]

I have looked at all the evidence and the "evidence" that is not evidence. You have obviously not done the same thing.

One of the first premises of a real scientist is that you never believe anyone, no mater who, status, even if they say they are Jesus or the reincarnation of Einstein, you still don't believe them, until it is ABSOLUTELY proven to you.

If you get off your lazy ass and get rid of all your preconceived nonsense from the brainwashing, then you can start to become a scientist.

If every peice of evidence shows a genealogy from the mating of humans passing down the ERV's to the primates, that is pretty compelling.

When you look at the DNA,Chromosomes and the whole genome evidence of all these creatures, Gorrilla, Chimp, Orangutans, Human It is clear there is only evidence for interbreeding. When you have a mass of years and many interbreedings until the ability to breed stops, you would see these individual genomes and being from the same family caused by human breeding. The most obvious is the Chimp and the Human as being from parent and offspring.

There is absolutely no way for you to refute this evidence. Just like all the genetics professors and doctors who could not and just became frustrated with it because it destroys one of their, the Evodelusionsists religious icons of the "great primate" that magically evolved into humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans,  and all the monkeys they tie with ERV's.

I have been studying this in great detail. You have not. You just lay down like a weak dog and accept the conjecture from nonsense artists.

When all the evidence fits, you cannot refute!

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:55pm:

Goodscience - You can answer more than one post at a time so answer mine. WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. PLEASE PROVIDE A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE.

Rule number 1/ There are no magical causes nor mystical processes.

2/ Only look at the evidence and never listen to the "scientists" as if they know something. Historically they have been proven wrong 100% of the time on things that have almost no evidence. Humans are prone to fill in the blanks with belief.

3/ Never believe anyone, including me until you get off your butt and do the work and look at the evidence with no preconcieved ideas. Then eventually the evidence will "speak" to you over and over with the same themes.

If you see a theme, keep looking OBJECTIVELY to see if it continues in ever aspect of any part of this premise.

If there is anything that would refute this, study that over and over and over, and see if you get a new theme.

Evidence is only physical. Opinions are NEVER evidence. Beware of "experts" with their pompous nonsense. They can be so adamant and "sure" while at the same time complete, utter,  illogical fools.

People never want to think they may be wrong. Finding any humility and grace in religious nonsense being pawned off as science, and actually giving these fools a PHD, only reinforces my desire to get rid of this crap from science.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 8:34pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 8:32pm: All the conjecture by experts is nonsense Whereas the conjecture by you, that also has no evidence to back it up is... what, exactly?  Oh, that's right!  nonsense!

Unlike you, I actuall present evidence in the DNA, ERV's, Chromosomes, historical evidence, and pshcholigical evidence in the amazing abilities of Chimps.
It is not based on anything but the actual evidence we have.

We have no evidence of any mystical, magical, "great primate" that was, the fantasy parent of the humans and chimps. Don't you know that?

Look at what is actually there, and never believe the conjecture based on belief. These weak humans project this garbage belief on all creatures. f**k them!
It is not even implied in the evidence.

Goodscience - You only answered half of my question. Give me an example of some evidence that YOU PERSONALLY would admit is evidence for evolution. This is a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. So hypothetically speaking, what type of evidence would you accept? If we could find any hypothetical object today that would sway you into accept evolution, what would it be?

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 9:25pm:

Goodscience - You only answered half of my question. Give me an example of some evidence that YOU PERSONALLY would admit is evidence for evolution. This is a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. So hypothetically speaking, what type of evidence would you accept? If we could find any hypothetical object today that would sway you into accept evolution, what would it be?

Produce DNA evidence of a pre human creature with all those ERV's.  That would be a good start.

Produce DNA evidence that ties any creature to any fossil?

If you can dig up a long series of transitional humans in a continual lineage from start to finish, so that there is clear transitional bones, and head shapes that leave no gaps.

You cannot use any opinions but only evidence that is self evident, obvious and no one could deny it. The truth is like that, self evident, obvious, and undeniable.

nonsense requires complicated science and voodoo that only the high priests can understand.  And if you don't accept the nonsense, you won't get your degree in "evolutionary nonsense".

This is the question that all my students need to answer:

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1261719440

Quote:

Produce DNA evidence of a pre human creature with all those ERV's.  That would be a good start.

They have found very similar ERV's (genetic markers) in apes. We cannot test organisms of what humans evolved from because the creature is no longer around. But we can test the genetic markers in similar creatures and we can show that we share similar ERV's with apes.

"Produce DNA evidence that ties any creature to any fossil?"
Care to explain? Considering that chimps share 99.8% of our DNA.. Is that not enough for you?

"If you can dig up a long series of transitional humans in a continual lineage from start to finish, so that there is clear transitional bones, and head shapes that leave no gaps."
That's not physically possible. Here is an example. If I showed you a picture of George Bush as a child and showed you another picture of him as an adult. Would you then agree that they are one and the same? Now if you said no, would you then accept it if I showed you that their facial structures were the same by using a specialized machine that focuses on that type of observation? If you say no, why not? Will you not accept that he grew up unless I showed you a picture of George Bush that was taken every single day of his life? Now, if you take in how many days the average person lives and how infrequently pictures are actually taken in comparison to a persons life, would you then acknowledge that asking for that as evidence is futile? It is impossible for that to happen even (if) evolution is true.

"nonsense requires complicated science and voodoo that only the high priests can understand. "
So.. nonsense requires complicated science that only the people who actually study in the field can understand it. AKA you can't understand it so you deny it's possibility simply because you can't understand the simplicities of evolutionary theory. And yes, it is a very simple theory to understand.

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

Quote: Produce DNA evidence of a pre human creature with all those ERV's.  That would be a good start. They have found very similar ERV's (genetic markers) in apes. We cannot test organisms of what humans evolved from because the creature is no longer around. But we can test the genetic markers in similar creatures and we can show that we share similar ERV's with apes. "Produce DNA evidence that ties any creature to any fossil?" Care to explain? Considering that chimps share 99.8% of our DNA.. Is that not enough for you? "If you can dig up a long series of transitional humans in a continual lineage from start to finish, so that there is clear transitional bones, and head shapes that leave no gaps." That's not physically possible. Here is an example. If I showed you a picture of George Bush as a child and showed you another picture of him as an adult. Would you then agree that they are one and the same? Now if you said no, would you then accept it if I showed you that their facial structures were the same by using a specialized machine that focuses on that type of observation? If you say no, why not? Will you not accept that he grew up unless I showed you a picture of George Bush that was taken every single day of his life? Now, if you take in how many days the average person lives and how infrequently pictures are actually taken in comparison to a persons life, would you then acknowledge that asking for that as evidence is futile? It is impossible for that to happen even (if) evolution is true. "nonsense requires complicated science and voodoo that only the high priests can understand. " So.. nonsense requires complicated science that only the people who actually study in the field can understand it. AKA you can't understand it so you deny it's possibility simply because you can't understand the simplicities of evolutionary theory. And yes, it is a very simple theory to understand.

I am sorry that you understand it that way.  It is pretty hard for me to see someone deep in this crap.  I have empathy for you, but that is it.  If you continue to spread this crap to others you are dishonoring your mind, and the people you touch with this and that part of you that seeks the truth.  You don't even understand what I teach.

You are not a believer in the George Bush idea.  Nobody can be that stupid.
This is a carry over of the, nonsense of "absence of evidence is no evidence of absence".
These are brainwashing slogans, obviously.

The logical fallacy is that this is the truth to break that nonsense for you, if you listen carefully and you still have any objective reason.

The "absence of evidence IS the absence of evidence". If there is nothing there, then there is nothing there. You CANNOT fill in the gaps with faith and belief.
These weak humans use this garbage all the time.

They take something that has truth in it and confuse the garbage out of you and twist your mind in to the shape of their f**king delusions.

If it is not absolutely obvious, then it is a logical fallacy or a fantasy built on a story.
When you are brainwashed to the point of believing stories and fantasy, you live in an utter logical fallacy. It is like your mind walked into a living fantasy novel book got stuck there or something and can no longer see or understand where you came from originally was clear of this garbage.

If you want to learn to learn, you go back to the beginning and start over and look at everything from the perspective of the original you, before this garbage was forced on you by your surroundings and be a skeptic and only seeking the absolute truth in this.
You never believe anyone and you make your own determinations on any piece of evidence!  Just assume they are all liars, even if you believe them now.

The ERV's do not show any evolution. Just interbreeding of humans with animals. This is the most plausible answer.  There are no fantasy, mystical creatures that never existed.

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

Quote: Produce DNA evidence of a pre human creature with all those ERV's.  That would be a good start. They have found very similar ERV's (genetic markers) in apes. We cannot test organisms of what humans evolved from because the creature is no longer around. But we can test the genetic markers in similar creatures and we can show that we share similar ERV's with apes. "Produce DNA evidence that ties any creature to any fossil?" Care to explain? Considering that chimps share 99.8% of our DNA.. Is that not enough for you? "If you can dig up a long series of transitional humans in a continual lineage from start to finish, so that there is clear transitional bones, and head shapes that leave no gaps." That's not physically possible. Here is an example. If I showed you a picture of George Bush as a child and showed you another picture of him as an adult. Would you then agree that they are one and the same? Now if you said no, would you then accept it if I showed you that their facial structures were the same by using a specialized machine that focuses on that type of observation? If you say no, why not? Will you not accept that he grew up unless I showed you a picture of George Bush that was taken every single day of his life? Now, if you take in how many days the average person lives and how infrequently pictures are actually taken in comparison to a persons life, would you then acknowledge that asking for that as evidence is futile? It is impossible for that to happen even (if) evolution is true. "nonsense requires complicated science and voodoo that only the high priests can understand. " So.. nonsense requires complicated science that only the people who actually study in the field can understand it. AKA you can't understand it so you deny it's possibility simply because you can't understand the simplicities of evolutionary theory. And yes, it is a very simple theory to understand.

Repeat after me:  I swear that I will not fall for that incredibly stupid slogan again!  I know that if there is no evidence, I cannot fill in the blanks with faith and belief.  I know that if there is no evidence, there is no evidence.  If it is not there, it is not there. It most likely never was there and is a part of a fantasy.

This is the road to getting your mind back.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 11:52pm:

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 10:24pm: Quote: Produce DNA evidence of a pre human creature with all those ERV's.  That would be a good start. They have found very similar ERV's (genetic markers) in apes. We cannot test organisms of what humans evolved from because the creature is no longer around. But we can test the genetic markers in similar creatures and we can show that we share similar ERV's with apes. "Produce DNA evidence that ties any creature to any fossil?" Care to explain? Considering that chimps share 99.8% of our DNA.. Is that not enough for you? "If you can dig up a long series of transitional humans in a continual lineage from start to finish, so that there is clear transitional bones, and head shapes that leave no gaps." That's not physically possible. Here is an example. If I showed you a picture of George Bush as a child and showed you another picture of him as an adult. Would you then agree that they are one and the same? Now if you said no, would you then accept it if I showed you that their facial structures were the same by using a specialized machine that focuses on that type of observation? If you say no, why not? Will you not accept that he grew up unless I showed you a picture of George Bush that was taken every single day of his life? Now, if you take in how many days the average person lives and how infrequently pictures are actually taken in comparison to a persons life, would you then acknowledge that asking for that as evidence is futile? It is impossible for that to happen even (if) evolution is true. "nonsense requires complicated science and voodoo that only the high priests can understand. " So.. nonsense requires complicated science that only the people who actually study in the field can understand it. AKA you can't understand it so you deny it's possibility simply because you can't understand the simplicities of evolutionary theory. And yes, it is a very simple theory to understand. Repeat after me:  I swear that I will not fall for that incredibly stupid slogan again!  I know that if there is no evidence, I cannot fill in the blanks with faith and belief.  I know that if there is no evidence, there is no evidence.  If it is not there, it is not there. It most likely never was there and is a part of a fantasy. This is the road to getting your mind back.

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

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." Albert Einstein

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 11:59pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 11:52pm: ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 10:24pm: Quote: Produce DNA evidence of a pre human creature with all those ERV's.  That would be a good start. They have found very similar ERV's (genetic markers) in apes. We cannot test organisms of what humans evolved from because the creature is no longer around. But we can test the genetic markers in similar creatures and we can show that we share similar ERV's with apes. "Produce DNA evidence that ties any creature to any fossil?" Care to explain? Considering that chimps share 99.8% of our DNA.. Is that not enough for you? "If you can dig up a long series of transitional humans in a continual lineage from start to finish, so that there is clear transitional bones, and head shapes that leave no gaps." That's not physically possible. Here is an example. If I showed you a picture of George Bush as a child and showed you another picture of him as an adult. Would you then agree that they are one and the same? Now if you said no, would you then accept it if I showed you that their facial structures were the same by using a specialized machine that focuses on that type of observation? If you say no, why not? Will you not accept that he grew up unless I showed you a picture of George Bush that was taken every single day of his life? Now, if you take in how many days the average person lives and how infrequently pictures are actually taken in comparison to a persons life, would you then acknowledge that asking for that as evidence is futile? It is impossible for that to happen even (if) evolution is true. "nonsense requires complicated science and voodoo that only the high priests can understand. " So.. nonsense requires complicated science that only the people who actually study in the field can understand it. AKA you can't understand it so you deny it's possibility simply because you can't understand the simplicities of evolutionary theory. And yes, it is a very simple theory to understand. Repeat after me:  I swear that I will not fall for that incredibly stupid slogan again!  I know that if there is no evidence, I cannot fill in the blanks with faith and belief.  I know that if there is no evidence, there is no evidence.  If it is not there, it is not there. It most likely never was there and is a part of a fantasy. This is the road to getting your mind back. "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." Albert Einstein "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." Albert Einstein "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

All religious slogans like: "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", meaning it must have been their "I can see it in my head, along with all those voices. If I can see it in my head it must be real." All religious slogans do not belong in science.

Quote:

absence of evidence is no evidence of absence

Actually that saying isn't nonsense. Let me give you an example. 4,000 years ago, we couldn't see Pluto. Is that evidence that Pluto doesn't exist? Of course not. 1,000 years ago we had no idea that plate tectonics existed. Is that evidence in itself that plate tectonics doesn't exist? Of course not. However, I'll give you ONE thing. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We have evidence from allele frequencies within mutations which can depict evolutionary change. However, you believe God put us all here. Why do you believe God put us all here when there is absolutely no evidence for God, but in accordance with evolution, you raise your burden of proof so high that no one can prove it to you. In effect, you're stacking the deck in your favor. In your mind, you have already won before the debate even begun and before the evidence was even laid out.


Quote:

The logical fallacy is that this is the truth to break that nonsense for you, if you listen carefully and you still have any objective reason.

Do you even know what logical fallacy means? You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.


Quote:

You never believe anyone and you make your own determinations on any piece of evidence!

I DID. It may surprise you but I didn't learn about evolution in school. In fact, I never even took a high school science class. Ironic enough, I am going into the sciences. I learned about evolution on my own. Why? Because the intricate properties of life fascinate me. Evolution is an intricate property of life. Biological organisms change. They evolve. They do not stay the same forever. This is a property of life kind of like falling is a property of gravity.


Quote:

Just interbreeding of humans with animals.

Humans can't interbreed with non-human animals you nitwit.
There is a thing called Chromosomes. Say it with me now.. Chro mo somes. Three syllables. Do you know what they do? Well, sex chromosomes prevent animals that are genetically different from each other from interbreeding. Do you know what this means? This means that chimps and humans CAN'T f**kING HAVE CHILDREN! Why? Because the chromosomes aren't compatible. Let me use an analogy you might be familiar with. It would be like trying to fit a cube (a shape with 6 sides) into a triangle slot (a shape with 3 sides) It just can't be done. It is INCOMPATIBLE. Here is an analogy that more sophisticated people may understand. It is like trying to put the mac OS on a windows PC. It can't be done. (Although, recently the mac does allow the windows OS but that is due to programming)

Want another example? Try to put a recent video game on a computer running Windows 95. It can't be done. Why? Because they require XP or Vista to run. They are I-N-C-O-M-P-A-T-I-B-L-E!!! INCOMPATIBLE!! Interbreeding with other species that do not share the chromosomal compatibility is the true pseudoscience nonsense that you're spewing.

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 12:07am:

Quote: absence of evidence is no evidence of absence Actually that saying isn't nonsense. Let me give you an example. 4,000 years ago, we couldn't see Pluto. Is that evidence that Pluto doesn't exist? Of course not. 1,000 years ago we had no idea that plate tectonics existed. Is that evidence in itself that plate tectonics doesn't exist? Of course not. However, I'll give you ONE thing. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We have evidence from allele frequencies within mutations which can depict evolutionary change. However, you believe God put us all here. Why do you believe God put us all here when there is absolutely no evidence for God, but in accordance with evolution, you raise your burden of proof so high that no one can prove it to you. In effect, you're stacking the deck in your favor. In your mind, you have already won before the debate even begun and before the evidence was even laid out.

It is really hard for me to fathom how stupid you are.  I am not kidding.  You continue with extreme nonsense that has been inflicted on your mind.

You idiot  Pluto was there and was found, so it is evidence.
This has nothing to do with the fact that we have no evidence for evolution.

There is nothing to fill in the gaps with that is actual evidence in the fossil record in DNA, ERV's,Chromosomes.  Therefore there is no evidence. and that means there exists no evidence.
So, therefore only a f**king moron would believe this garbage.

Listen to this video by this guy who is an expert in science.
He actually made my case for me. He explained how humans had 48 chromosomes at one time. Then I went and looked at human chromosomes and Chimp chromosomes and immediatly figured it out. It is so damned obvious.

He showed me the exact alignment with the chromosomes. Then I studied and found other creatures that have not bred and were flown thousands of miles to breed because their chromosomes match. The outcome is the CAMA. This was pure genetics and real genetics and it works.

Before the fusion of # 2 humans and apes could mate.  Go look!

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257966781

You must watch all the videos, and all the evidence on that thread. It is required reading and listening to.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257966781

Quote:

You idiot  Pluto was there and was found, so it is evidence.

Pluto was discovered in the 1930's. What the quote, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is stating, if you didn't know, is that you can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that something doesn't happen. This is one of the things that quote is actually saying. What you're now saying is that you CAN prove that something doesn't exist by saying that there is no evidence for it. This is WRONG. By this justification, you can say that pluto didn't exist prior to 1930 because no one had discovered it yet.


Quote:

This has nothing to do with the fact that we have no evidence for evolution.

We DO have evidence you just refuse to accept it. Let me introduce you to a book. It is called the Greatest Show on Earth. You can also read the Blind Watchmaker or the Selfish Gene. Go on. Read those three books.


Quote:

feculence.

I've noticed that when you use a big word quite a bit without variation then you are proud that you know of a big word and you are trying to get people to think you are intelligent when you can use that word in a sentence, but when you overuse the word, it makes you sound like an idiot. Like you're trying too hard.


Quote:

He actually made my case for me. He explained how humans had 48 chromosomes at one time. Then I went and looked at human chromosomes and Chimp chromosomes and immediatly figured it out. It is so damned obvious."

Actually that proves that humans and apes are genetically linked to a common ancestor. It isn't proof that modern day humans can mate with modern day apes. We were one and the same when our chromosomes were at 48. We splintered into two different ape varieties.
So of course pre-humans and pre-apes could mate. BECAUSE WE WERE THE SAME SPECIES!!

I am amused that you gave me a link to one of DonExodus' videos. He is a big proponent of evolution and he even EXPLAINS that evolution is real! He even uses Kenneth Miller as a source! He is a Catholic who acknowledge evolution which makes your argument that atheism is a religion to deny God null and void.

I must say, having read the mess that is this thread, that Goodscience is making literally no sense. Even I, someone who finds the idea of coming from apes distasteful, can agree with the others as to his lack of understanding.
Goodscience - I feel sorry for you, stuck in a limbo of mixed understanding with little hope of salvation due to an irascible attitude. I hope you find a way out. This forum is anything but neutral. You said you were a seeker of truth and only truth matters, yet you redefine words to your own liking. This is totally dishonest and I think you know that, which  makes it worse.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 9:02pm:

If every peice of evidence shows a genealogy from the mating of humans passing down the ERV's to the primates, that is pretty compelling.

The evidence shows no such thing. If you think it does, PROVE IT. Don't just talk about it, show me actual genomes, and specific ERVs.


Quote:

When you look at the DNA,Chromosomes and the whole genome evidence of all these creatures, Gorrilla, Chimp, Orangutans, Human It is clear there is only evidence for interbreeding. When you have a mass of years and many interbreedings until the ability to breed stops, you would see these individual genomes and being from the same family caused by human breeding. The most obvious is the Chimp and the Human as being from parent and offspring.

You know what? You're right. There was interbreeding... but it happened BEFORE humans and chimps diverged - before they were separate SPECIES. This is basic evolution for you.


Quote:

There is absolutely no way for you to refute this evidence. Just like all the genetics professors and doctors who could not and just became frustrated with it because it destroys one of their, the Evodelusionsists religious icons of the "great primate" that magically evolved into humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans,  and all the monkeys they tie with ERV's.

I can't refute what doesn't exist.


Quote:

I have been studying this in great detail. You have not. You just lay down like a weak dog and accept the conjecture from nonsense artists.

Another terms-of-use-breaking false statement. I have been researching this on my own for years, and have been challenging the evidence when I don't understand it. The bottom line is that the evidence presents a coherent explanation for the development and continued adaptation of life on this planet.


Quote:

When all the evidence fits, you cannot refute!

And yet, here you are, trying to refute evolution. You have no such evidence to support your "hypothesis" - and even then, your hypothesis does not explain the millions - or billions - of other species that evolved on this planet.

CreationIst wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 4:32am:

I must say, having read the mess that is this thread, that Goodscience is making literally no sense. Even I, someone who finds the idea of coming from apes distasteful, can agree with the others as to his lack of understanding. Goodscience - I feel sorry for you, stuck in a limbo of mixed understanding with little hope of salvation due to an irascible attitude. I hope you find a way out. This forum is anything but neutral. You said you were a seeker of truth and only truth matters, yet you redefine words to your own liking. This is totally dishonest and I think you know that, which  makes it worse.

I'm glad to see you recognized that. Good luck in your continued effort to advance your mind.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 9:11pm:

Rule number 1/ There are no magical causes nor mystical processes. 2/ Only look at the evidence and never listen to the "scientists" as if they know something. Historically they have been proven wrong 100% of the time on things that have almost no evidence. Humans are prone to fill in the blanks with belief. 3/ Never believe anyone, including me until you get off your butt and do the work and look at the evidence with no preconcieved ideas. Then eventually the evidence will "speak" to you over and over with the same themes. If you see a theme, keep looking OBJECTIVELY to see if it continues in ever aspect of any part of this premise. If there is anything that would refute this, study that over and over and over, and see if you get a new theme. Evidence is only physical. Opinions are NEVER evidence. Beware of "experts" with their pompous nonsense. They can be so adamant and "sure" while at the same time complete, utter,  illogical fools. People never want to think they may be wrong. Finding any humility and grace in religious nonsense being pawned off as science, and actually giving these fools a PHD, only reinforces my desire to get rid of this crap from science.

And yet here you are, spouting off your own opinions as "facts"... it's sad, really.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:

Unlike you, I actuall present evidence in the DNA, ERV's, Chromosomes, historical evidence, and pshcholigical evidence in the amazing abilities of Chimps. It is not based on anything but the actual evidence we have.

Then SHOW THAT EVIDENCE! Explain how the evidence supports your hypothesis! I have yet to see that anywhere, on this board or on any other.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 4:47am:

CreationIst wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 4:32am: I must say, having read the mess that is this thread, that Goodscience is making literally no sense. Even I, someone who finds the idea of coming from apes distasteful, can agree with the others as to his lack of understanding. Goodscience - I feel sorry for you, stuck in a limbo of mixed understanding with little hope of salvation due to an irascible attitude. I hope you find a way out. This forum is anything but neutral. You said you were a seeker of truth and only truth matters, yet you redefine words to your own liking. This is totally dishonest and I think you know that, which  makes it worse. I'm glad to see you recognized that. Good luck in your continued effort to advance your mind.

Thanks. I've only just begun to look into this topic, as it is just dismissed in my church. I thought it prudent to know what it really is if I'm going to actively dispute it. At this rate, I'm likely to be convinced of its truthfulness if this level of misunderstanding is prevalent. It's disconcerting but freeing in a way. Maybe I am an ape after all...
bleurgh :)

CreationIst wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 4:59am:

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 4:47am: CreationIst wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 4:32am: I must say, having read the mess that is this thread, that Goodscience is making literally no sense. Even I, someone who finds the idea of coming from apes distasteful, can agree with the others as to his lack of understanding. Goodscience - I feel sorry for you, stuck in a limbo of mixed understanding with little hope of salvation due to an irascible attitude. I hope you find a way out. This forum is anything but neutral. You said you were a seeker of truth and only truth matters, yet you redefine words to your own liking. This is totally dishonest and I think you know that, which  makes it worse. I'm glad to see you recognized that. Good luck in your continued effort to advance your mind. Thanks. I've only just begun to look into this topic, as it is just dismissed in my church. I thought it prudent to know what it really is if I'm going to actively dispute it. At this rate, I'm likely to be convinced of its truthfulness if this level of misunderstanding is prevalent. It's disconcerting but freeing in a way. Maybe I am an ape after all... bleurgh :)

I can understand why it might be disturbing to know that you are... but as you said, it can also be freeing. Instead of being separate from the universe, you can recognize that you are a part of it.

I highly recommend videos on YouTube by AronRa, DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, cdk007, and Potholer54, among others. They are quite educational, and present evidence as well as explanation so that the lay person doesn't need 12 years of school to understand. talkorigins.org also has a lot of good information, but can be harder to navigate.

There may yet be valid challenges to the Theory of Evolution... but talkorigins.org deals with almost all of the invalid challenges.

Best of luck.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 4:48am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 9:11pm: Rule number 1/ There are no magical causes nor mystical processes. 2/ Only look at the evidence and never listen to the "scientists" as if they know something. Historically they have been proven wrong 100% of the time on things that have almost no evidence. Humans are prone to fill in the blanks with belief. 3/ Never believe anyone, including me until you get off your butt and do the work and look at the evidence with no preconcieved ideas. Then eventually the evidence will "speak" to you over and over with the same themes. If you see a theme, keep looking OBJECTIVELY to see if it continues in ever aspect of any part of this premise. If there is anything that would refute this, study that over and over and over, and see if you get a new theme. Evidence is only physical. Opinions are NEVER evidence. Beware of "experts" with their pompous nonsense. They can be so adamant and "sure" while at the same time complete, utter,  illogical fools. People never want to think they may be wrong. Finding any humility and grace in religious nonsense being pawned off as science, and actually giving these fools a PHD, only reinforces my desire to get rid of this crap from science. And yet here you are, spouting off your own opinions as "facts"... it's sad, really.

Can you back up the claim that scientists are historically 100% wrong on things that have no evidence? Besides evolution, which studies or data are you referring to?

Bleeding patients to get rid of evil spirits to heal them.

Thinking that the world is flat.

Believing that if you go too far, you will fall off the edge of the earth.

Thinking that the world is the center of the universe.

Evolution.

Alchemy was the only science at one time.

Global Warming, when the evidence shows the opposite.
Hiding the evidence from the public to keep the political nonsense going for money.

All of these were adamantly believed in by science.

The amount of knowledge of the universe contained in all of humanity is similar to a bird turd in the ocean.
The bird turd = human knowledge
Ocean sort of = all the knowledge of the universe.

Any "science" using assumptions as if they were real, is a pseudo science.

Any science that thinks human opinions on life is science is a pseudo science.

Any science that uses religious slogans is a pseudo science.

Any  science that does not perform exacting testing on evidence that is objective and can be verified by other means besides opinions is not science.

Any science that violates the laws of physics and thinks that is OK, is not science.

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

Bleeding patients to get rid of evil spirits to heal them. Thinking that the world is flat. Believing that if you go too far, you will fall off the edge of the earth. Thinking that the world is the center of the universe

I'm not so sure SCIENCE actually held those things to be true... but if they did, it was because that position was consistent with the evidence available at the time, and was not proven false until NEW evidence was discovered.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

Evolution. Global Warming, when the evidence shows the opposite. Hiding the evidence from the public to keep the political nonsense going for money.

And now you've crossed the line into full-fledged nutjobbery. Thanks for absolutely disproving your statement that you follow the evidence where it leads, and that you only believe things that are 100% proven.



Quote:

Any "science" using assumptions as if they were real, is a pseudo science.

That sums up this site rather precisely.


Quote:

Any  science that does not perform exacting testing on evidence that is objective and can be verified by other means besides opinions is not science.

... again, that sums up this site rather precisely.


Quote:

Any science that violates the laws of physics and thinks that is OK, is not science.

You have yet to demonstrate that any existing science violates any laws of physics. I've seen your list of claims, but no support for those claims.

Every post you make confirms your bias against real science.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 10:54am: Bleeding patients to get rid of evil spirits to heal them. Thinking that the world is flat. Believing that if you go too far, you will fall off the edge of the earth. Thinking that the world is the center of the universe I'm not so sure SCIENCE actually held those things to be true... but if they did, it was because that position was consistent with the evidence available at the time, and was not proven false until NEW evidence was discovered. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 10:54am: Evolution. Global Warming, when the evidence shows the opposite. Hiding the evidence from the public to keep the political nonsense going for money. And now you've crossed the line into full-fledged nutjobbery. Thanks for absolutely disproving your statement that you follow the evidence where it leads, and that you only believe things that are 100% proven. Quote: Any "science" using assumptions as if they were real, is a pseudo science. That sums up this site rather precisely. [quote]Any  science that does not perform exacting testing on evidence that is objective and can be verified by other means besides opinions is not science.

... again, that sums up this site rather precisely.


Quote:

Any science that violates the laws of physics and thinks that is OK, is not science.

You have yet to demonstrate that any existing science violates any laws of physics. I've seen your list of claims, but no support for those claims.

Every post you make confirms your bias against real science. [/quote]

Obviously there was NO evidence for any of those religious beliefs. Just like there is no evidence of any creature ever evolving into another creature and crossing genetic boundaries.

Do you have any evidence for evolution that you would like to share? 

It must be physical, irrefutable, have no other plausibilities in order for a sane person to accept this.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 10:54am: Bleeding patients to get rid of evil spirits to heal them. Thinking that the world is flat. Believing that if you go too far, you will fall off the edge of the earth. Thinking that the world is the center of the universe I'm not so sure SCIENCE actually held those things to be true... but if they did, it was because that position was consistent with the evidence available at the time, and was not proven false until NEW evidence was discovered. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 10:54am: Evolution. Global Warming, when the evidence shows the opposite. Hiding the evidence from the public to keep the political nonsense going for money. And now you've crossed the line into full-fledged nutjobbery. Thanks for absolutely disproving your statement that you follow the evidence where it leads, and that you only believe things that are 100% proven. Quote: Any "science" using assumptions as if they were real, is a pseudo science. That sums up this site rather precisely. [quote]Any  science that does not perform exacting testing on evidence that is objective and can be verified by other means besides opinions is not science.

... again, that sums up this site rather precisely.


Quote:

Any science that violates the laws of physics and thinks that is OK, is not science.

You have yet to demonstrate that any existing science violates any laws of physics. I've seen your list of claims, but no support for those claims.

Every post you make confirms your bias against real science. [/quote]

You are an oxymoron, mixed in a parodox.

I am here to show that you have no evidence that even suggests evolution.

You are supposed to defend your dumb ass position.

Get It.  Side stepping and nonsense is not helping your position.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 11:17am:

Obviously there was NO evidence for any of those religious beliefs. Just like there is no evidence of any creature ever evolving into another creature and crossing genetic boundaries.

Nobody has ever claimed that any creature has evolved into another creature, or crossed any genetic boundaries.

What the Theory of Evolution predicts is that populations of organisms evolved, and that as they did their genetic code changed. Every organism develops exactly as it's genetic "boundaries" allow.

What you seem to fail to understand is that each branch of development is still of the same type as its parent population of organisms, but has simply diverged from its sibling populations. Each branch develops slightly differently - or not at all, in many cases. Over a sufficiently great number of generations, the differences add up to where the sibling populations are too different to interbreed - science calls this speciation.

Humans and chimpanzees are still apes. Humans and lemurs are still primates. Humans and cats are still vertebrate mammals. Humans and oysters are still animals. Humans and sponges are still eukaryotes.

No population of mammals will ever change to become reptiles, no population of felines will ever change to become primates, etc. If you think this is what the Theory of Evolution predicts, you are sorely mistaken.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 11:17am:

Do you have any evidence for evolution that you would like to share? It must be physical, irrefutable, have no other plausibilities in order for a sane person to accept this.

You have already made it clear that you are unwilling to accept the evidence I have, and that your standards for plausibility are so ridiculously out of touch with reality that you do not qualify as a sane person.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 11:52am:

You are an oxymoron, mixed in a parodox. I am here to show that you have no evidence that even suggests evolution.

Again, thanks for proving that this is not a neutral forum for the discussion of evolution.


Quote:

You are supposed to defend your dumb ass position. Get It.  Side stepping and nonsense is not helping your position.

Right back at you.

The evidence of evolution is all around you, but you refuse to see it. You've even linked quite a few good videos that contain the evidence. It's not my fault that you're too out of touch with reality to accept it and follow it where it leads.

Quote:

Global Warming, when the evidence shows the opposite.

I wonder if he'll understand that Global warming doesn't exactly cause warming. It causes the temperature to be out of the norm.. Be it too hot or too cold. Global warming is actually the direct result of an ice age. Or, didn't you know that?

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 2:19pm:

Quote: Global Warming, when the evidence shows the opposite. I wonder if he'll understand that Global warming doesn't exactly cause warming. It causes the temperature to be out of the norm.. Be it too hot or too cold. Global warming is actually the direct result of an ice age. Or, didn't you know that?

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-spells-end-to-the-false-science-of-climate-change/

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 4:33pm:

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-spells-end-to-the-false-science-of-climate-change/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/226398

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 4:33pm:

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 2:19pm: Quote: Global Warming, when the evidence shows the opposite. I wonder if he'll understand that Global warming doesn't exactly cause warming. It causes the temperature to be out of the norm.. Be it too hot or too cold. Global warming is actually the direct result of an ice age. Or, didn't you know that? http://www.infowars.com/climategate-spells-end-to-the-false-science-of-climate-change/

http://all-things-wild.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-rebuttal.html

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 12:03pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 11:17am: Obviously there was NO evidence for any of those religious beliefs. Just like there is no evidence of any creature ever evolving into another creature and crossing genetic boundaries. Nobody has ever claimed that any creature has evolved into another creature, or crossed any genetic boundaries. What the Theory of Evolution predicts is that populations of organisms evolved, and that as they did their genetic code changed. Every organism develops exactly as it's genetic "boundaries" allow. What you seem to fail to understand is that each branch of development is still of the same type as its parent population of organisms, but has simply diverged from its sibling populations. Each branch develops slightly differently - or not at all, in many cases. Over a sufficiently great number of generations, the differences add up to where the sibling populations are too different to interbreed - science calls this speciation. Humans and chimpanzees are still apes. Humans and lemurs are still primates. Humans and cats are still vertebrate mammals. Humans and oysters are still animals. Humans and sponges are still eukaryotes. No population of mammals will ever change to become reptiles, no population of felines will ever change to become primates, etc. If you think this is what the Theory of Evolution predicts, you are sorely mistaken. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 11:17am: Do you have any evidence for evolution that you would like to share? It must be physical, irrefutable, have no other plausibilities in order for a sane person to accept this. You have already made it clear that you are unwilling to accept the evidence I have, and that your standards for plausibility are so ridiculously out of touch with reality that you do not qualify as a sane person.

You are the one with the questionable sanity.  My sanity has been proven in severe psychological tests. They also tested my IQ. The only thing found was that I have a high opinion of myself.

According to all the "gurus" of success, you cannot succeed without a high opinion of yourself.  So, I was very pleased with my all day long psych exame. It was part of a law suit to get custody of my son from his alcoholic, drug addicted mother.  I won the custody at the recommendation of the Psychologist.

I spent 17 years deep in yoga and meditation to achieve this condition of clear thoughts and peaceful and loving forgiveness for people who are ignorant and judd. "Judd", means tamisic in thoughts.  I am blunt with people who are ignorant because I have little patience in my old age. It seem ridiculous that a grow man, or woman would believe in fairy tales.

The purpose of Yoga is to become free of all that is false. When you do that, all that is left is true.

Can you prove even one premise of your beliefs? Just one would be a good start?

How about anything in DNA you believe is evidence?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:

You are the one with the questionable sanity.  My sanity has been proven in severe psychological tests.

Congratulations, you can fool a shrink.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:

The only thing found was that I have a high opinion of myself.

Certainly didn't need expensive psychological tests to tell you that!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:

Can you prove even one premise of your beliefs? Just one would be a good start?

Easily. I'll even give you more than one.

Premise 1: The genes of children will be a product of their parents' genes, with possible mutations. This was proven in Mendel's pea experiments, and has been reaffirmed in a multitude of experiments since then, including right in front of my eyes with my own children.

Premise 2: Over time, the frequency of alleles in a population will change. This is easily observed in the various geographically distributed populations of humans around the globe. We refer to these differences in the frequency of alleles as "ethnicity". We can also experiment and control this change in allelic frequency, and we do so when breeding livestock or dogs, or when we select certain strains of certain crops to select for desirable features such as food quantity or disease resistance.

Premise 3: Certain genetic changes can be selected for and can become dominant in a population. For example, a bacteria with a favorable mutation giving it a resistance to an antibiotic will survive when others of its population are killed. Its offspring will inherit this resistance, giving rise to a population that is resistant to that antibiotic. This is observed in medicine as I've already described, and has also been observed under controlled conditions in a laboratory - specifically, the mutation leading a single-cellular organism to become multi-cellular, a mutation which was then selected for in response to predation. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006527528063 for more information.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:

How about anything in DNA you believe is evidence?

I've already mentioned the ERV evidence, but as you "believe" that such evidence proves historic bestiality and not evolution, I guess I should just let it go.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 12:05pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 11:52am: You are an oxymoron, mixed in a parodox. I am here to show that you have no evidence that even suggests evolution. Again, thanks for proving that this is not a neutral forum for the discussion of evolution. Quote: You are supposed to defend your dumb ass position. Get It.  Side stepping and nonsense is not helping your position. Right back at you. The evidence of evolution is all around you, but you refuse to see it. You've even linked quite a few good videos that contain the evidence. It's not my fault that you're too out of touch with reality to accept it and follow it where it leads.

Here is you basic problem and I am telling you this out of love for you as one human to another.

You have been brainwashed into false ideas that have no evidence.
You think that slogans are science.
You think that peoples perceptions and beliefs are evidence.
You think that some authority(s) with a PHD('s) should have sway with your thinking.
You have fallen for most of the delusional beliefs that have no evidence.
You see opinions as some form of truth.

I wish you well, but you need to get back to the place you started, before this belief took over your mind.

I describe it this way, just to help you to get free of things that are fantasy.

"If it is not absolutely obvious, then it is a logical fallacy or a fantasy built on a story.
When you are brainwashed to the point of believing stories and fantasy, you live in an utter logical fallacy, thinking it is real, and you surround yourself with fantasy believers.

It is like your mind walked into a living fantasy novel book got stuck there or something and can no longer see or understand where you came from originally was clear of this HEMG.

When good fantasy is written they lay a foundation for the scenery, the laws of science in this fantasy world, the code of conduct, the dress codes, the abilities of creatures, the intelligence of creatures, the types of features on the creatures, and even what the vegetation is, looks like and such.  If there is a moon or two etc.
A good fantasy is well written as to draw you into the fantasy. The problem is when the fantasy is projected on the real world as in Evodelusionism.


If you want to learn to learn, you go back to the beginning and start over without the brainwashing, and look at everything from the perspective of a skeptic and only seeking the absolute truth in this.

You must never believe anyone and you make your own determinations on any piece of evidence! Just assume they are all liars, even if you believe them, or worship them, as some of the followers of the baby, thunderdickhead, and the old potsmoker54, and that child DonExodus now. These people are very low IQ, and do not have any discrimination protecting their minds from crap.


People who are totally buried in delusions will perpetuate those delusions. It is human nature. So someone could be looking at the sky and be so happy from just that. Another person can look at anything and never be satisfied. It is all a matter of human nature and human mental filtering. All humans are imperfect.
I have only met but a few who were so clean of crap and full of love. That is a rare find.
If you have surrendered your life to delusions, the best thing to do is to realize it. Otherwise it owns you.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 6:31pm:

If you have surrendered your life to delusions, the best thing to do is to realize it. Otherwise it owns you.

And you are the perfect example of the truth of this statement.

I'm done here. I wish you the best with your delusions.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 6:30pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:07pm: You are the one with the questionable sanity.  My sanity has been proven in severe psychological tests. Congratulations, you can fool a shrink. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:07pm: The only thing found was that I have a high opinion of myself. Certainly didn't need expensive psychological tests to tell you that! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:07pm: Can you prove even one premise of your beliefs? Just one would be a good start? Dabeer wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:30pm: Easily. I'll even give you more than one. Premise 1: The genes of children will be a product of their parents' genes, with possible mutations. This was proven in Mendel's pea experiments, and has been reaffirmed in a multitude of experiments since then, including right in front of my eyes with my own children. I am sorry but that is not evidence for evolution. The only thing shown in DNA genetic differences is information, genetic coding, passed down to the offspring from the parents, and adaptations to the environment for the creature to SURVIVE as the same creature.  This is in all that I have read on DNA and medical advances. They can see the effects of smoking, toxins in the air, cancer "genes", bad high cholesterol foods. The genome of humans only shows a tremendous desire to survive and no desire to evolve or to become another species. Do you know that they have discovered a change in Asian people showing the body's ability to fight off clogged arteries?  This was inevitable with the processed highly toxic processed oils.  Do you know that hydrogenated vegetable oil and animal fat mostly from cattle meat, are two of the main cause of cholesterol and clogged arteries and heart disease?  Now we have to adapt to more poisons. These poisons were not here even 100 years ago. (I have not eaten meat in 41 years.  It is the reason why I have so few physical issues at the age of 61 almost 62.) At best you statements are based on the unproven slogans of the believers. There is no such thing as "random mutations". This is just another slogan that has no foundation in science. There is not one single scientific test done to support that nonsense. Go see if you can find one! Everything in science operates on cause and effect or cause and result. It is the foundation of science.  There is no science without cause and result.  PERIOD. Try and perform any experiment in science that doesn't work on cause and effect? Mendel's pea experiments only show genetics (causes and effects) and how dominant and recessive genes seem to function. It has nothing to do with evolution. Dabeer wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:30pm: Premise 2: Over time, the frequency of alleles in a population will change. This is easily observed in the various geographically distributed populations of humans around the globe. We refer to these differences in the frequency of alleles as "ethnicity". We can also experiment and control this change in allelic frequency, and we do so when breeding livestock or dogs, or when we select certain strains of certain crops to select for desirable features such as food quantity or disease resistance. If they are all still humans they have not evolved.  In oder to prove evolution you have to show how a creature can become a totally different species and even a new genus. You must provide clear irrefutable physical evidence for this. The Theory Of Evolution states that humans "evolved" from fish, marine life.  They got this way by continually changing from fish to more complex creatures and eventually into humans.  You cannot deny that this is the final premises of this delusional nonsense, because it is written all over the world this way.  You cannot use adaptations in the genome and say this has anything to do with this idea. The physical evidence on this debunks this Evolution completely. Dabeer wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:30pm: Premise 3: Certain genetic changes can be selected for and can become dominant in a population. For example, a bacteria with a favorable mutation giving it a resistance to an antibiotic will survive when others of its population are killed. Its offspring will inherit this resistance, giving rise to a population that is resistant to that antibiotic. This is observed in medicine as I've already described, and has also been observed under controlled conditions in a laboratory - specifically, the mutation leading a single-cellular organism to become multi-cellular, a mutation which was then selected for in response to predation. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006527528063 for more information. Bacteria adapts to the environment pretty fast, but it has never evolved into a new creature. There are strains of bacteria but no new species, just two types of basic bacteria. The differences are in what is shown in the adaptation. And If you change the food of a bacteria strain it will adapt. If you try to poison it it will adapt.  It can remain dormant for thousands of years and be reanimated by events. Do you know this? If forms a bio film of dead bacteria to cover up the still living bacteria when it is attacked by chemicals. Bacteria adapts like this because it has extreme programming to survive and this is because of its subatomic programming. That is obvious. If bacteria did not adapt like this, all life on earth will cease. Because humans have more bacteria cells in their bodies than human cells. Bacteria is a necessary part of organic life, so it was programmed to survive to keep the world alive. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:07pm: How about anything in DNA you believe is evidence? I've already mentioned the ERV evidence, but as you "believe" that such evidence proves historic bestiality and not evolution, I guess I should just let it go.

I am talking about the human genome project and all the articles on DNA studies on humans and other creatures. It is fascinating to read.  There is absolutely no evidence for evolution in any of those papers.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:

skintube wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 3:12pm: Asking Goodscienceforyou to answer is pointless, he will retort with his same old ignorant question about proving evolution without opinions, despite empirical data to show it IN ACTION. He wants to feed his ridiculously irrelevant ego (he always assumed he was destined for greatness but is now closer to death than he wants to admit) by starting a cult. However, he's no David Koresh. He's not even Rael... He thinks that chimpanzees are a mix of human and gorilla, that at some point in the past a human had sex with a gorilla. Perhaps he thinks it was rape or something... But... but there'd have to be more than one rape to create an entirely different sub-species so it must've been a concerted effort, by man, to cross-breed. How did he extrapolate this idea? Was ther any empirical evidence with no opinions or beliefs in it? Show us the data, Goodscienceforyou. Oh, you can't, can you... BECAUSE YOU MADE IT UP! This is beyond stupid and nearly breaks the fabric of reality with its pure, unadulterated ignorance. This is all straw man nonsense.  I think I am going to ban you for this. We do not allow you to lie about what I teach. I do not believe that chimps came from breeding apes and humans, but it is a far more logical answer to the DNA, Chromosomes, and the ERV's propagated in the primates. It is the only premise that actually follows the evidence. I have presented this to now 6 PHD's in genetics and they cannot refute it, because it is 100% plausible. I don't believe anything that does not have absolute evidence.

Our differences on the existence of "absolute evidence" aside, I've done a bit of reading on the "Humanzee" concept and it seems that from the few, unethical, and dark studies done on the possibility of producing offspring between the two species, breeding between the two was repeatedly unsuccessful. It makes me feel rather icky to have to say it, so I won't go into the physical detail of what was found from the studies. It seems to me there is no evidence at all for the possible hybridisation of the two other than the THEORY that the shared DNA between the two might make a match.

So this is your pet "theory," and you've got to acknowledge that you think it likely even if you do not believe it, and you can't believe it, because there's no evidence.

So why does it surprise you, either way, that the theory of evolution seems likely and plausible in similar ways even though we can't put it in a test tube and observe it directly? You're mistaken to think there's any FAITH involved in the theory of evolution, they are studying it as a plausible and probable answer to many scientific questions, and this is how it is taught to the poor, innocent and brainwashed schoolchildren.

Simianus wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2010 at 2:34pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 5:43pm: skintube wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 3:12pm: Asking Goodscienceforyou to answer is pointless, he will retort with his same old ignorant question about proving evolution without opinions, despite empirical data to show it IN ACTION. He wants to feed his ridiculously irrelevant ego (he always assumed he was destined for greatness but is now closer to death than he wants to admit) by starting a cult. However, he's no David Koresh. He's not even Rael... He thinks that chimpanzees are a mix of human and gorilla, that at some point in the past a human had sex with a gorilla. Perhaps he thinks it was rape or something... But... but there'd have to be more than one rape to create an entirely different sub-species so it must've been a concerted effort, by man, to cross-breed. How did he extrapolate this idea? Was ther any empirical evidence with no opinions or beliefs in it? Show us the data, Goodscienceforyou. Oh, you can't, can you... BECAUSE YOU MADE IT UP! This is beyond stupid and nearly breaks the fabric of reality with its pure, unadulterated ignorance. This is all straw man nonsense.  I think I am going to ban you for this. We do not allow you to lie about what I teach. I do not believe that chimps came from breeding apes and humans, but it is a far more logical answer to the DNA, Chromosomes, and the ERV's propagated in the primates. It is the only premise that actually follows the evidence. I have presented this to now 6 PHD's in genetics and they cannot refute it, because it is 100% plausible. I don't believe anything that does not have absolute evidence. Our differences on the existence of "absolute evidence" aside, I've done a bit of reading on the "Humanzee" concept and it seems that from the few, unethical, and dark studies done on the possibility of producing offspring between the two species, breeding between the two was repeatedly unsuccessful. It makes me feel rather icky to have to say it, so I won't go into the physical detail of what was found from the studies. It seems to me there is no evidence at all for the possible hybridisation of the two other than the THEORY that the shared DNA between the two might make a match. So this is your pet "theory," and you've got to acknowledge that you think it likely even if you do not believe it, and you can't believe it, because there's no evidence. So why does it surprise you, either way, that the theory of evolution seems likely and plausible in similar ways even though we can't put it in a test tube and observe it directly? You're mistaken to think there's any FAITH involved in the theory of evolution, they are studying it as a plausible and probable answer to many scientific questions, and this is how it is taught to the poor, innocent and brainwashed schoolchildren.

As distasteful as it is, it is a fact of life. 
If you go listen carefully to this evodelusionist, he clearly makes a case for the breeding.
Chimps 48 chromosomes.
Humans 48 chromosomes at that time, before the fusion of number 2 chromosome.
Listen carefully to the facts not the "What must have happened" nonsense based on belief.  Just listen to the genetic facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk


Then look a the DNA, Chrmosome charts of all the other large primates and the picture comes together pretty clear.

Also look up the CAMA in which the scientists took a look a the DNA, Chromosomes, and physical characteristics of two creatures and bread them.  These were supppsed to be separated by 2 million years.

This is a CAMA bred from a Camel and a Llama.

---

Here is the chromosome charts side by side.

All are potential breeders with humans but only at the time of the 48 chromosomes of humans and not after the fusion. That makes interbreeding impossible now.

I do not believe any of this, it is just a far more plausible answer to this based on NO BELIEFS, but a deep study into the genetics of this .
This is why no PHD of genetics can refute this.

---

I do understand the genetic similarities as I have studied this in school.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2010 at 3:22pm:

Chimps 48 chromosomes. Humans 48 chromosomes at that time, before the fusion of number 2 chromosome.

Right, so... human chromosomes have been modified since that time. Just out of curiosity, how do you explain this?

Simianus wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2010 at 4:33pm:

I do understand the genetic similarities as I have studied this in school. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 3:22pm: Chimps 48 chromosomes. Humans 48 chromosomes at that time, before the fusion of number 2 chromosome. Right, so... human chromosomes have been modified since that time. Just out of curiosity, how do you explain this?

There is no need to guess how this happened.  We don't know, but it appears to be real. The markers of the telomeres is there and the other chromosomes line up too darn perfectly with the Chimp to be anything but a direct relationship that is not separated by millions of years.  It makes no sense at all.  The whole idea of common ancestor is false and has no evidence to back it.

All we have is DNA, ERV's (that are too close for anything more that a few thousand years.) and the Chromosomes show a direct relative, like you would see in a breeding event between humans and another animal with absolutely similar DNA and Chromosomes.  Perhaps the gorilla seems to be the most likely.

Keep in mind that there is no absolute evidence for any of this, (so I don't believe it and have no association with it) but there is FAR more evidence and it is far more logical to have interbreeding and the ERV;s propagated throughout the primates from this first breeding.  Nothing is out of order on this premise.  All factors fit.
Go look at all the evidence. It ALL points to this and does not point at all to a common ancestor "great primate" that split off and made all the humans and apes.  That is ridiculous and basically religious in nature.  There is nothing in evidence to support a common ancestor except a religious belief in Evodelusionism! ;D

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2010 at 3:29pm:

Here is the chromosome charts side by side. All are potential breeders with humans but only at the time of the 48 chromosomes of humans and not after the fusion. That makes interbreeding impossible now. I do not believe any of this, it is just a far more plausible answer to this based on NO BELIEFS, but a deep study into the genetics of this . This is why no PHD of genetics can refute this.

If you look at the Gorilla and the Human DNA, it is merged into the Chimp DNA perfectly.  The Chromosomes are as if the gorilla and the human parts were mixed and can easily be seen in the Chimp.

Now go look at the Gorilla, Human and Chimp skeletons.  You will see a merging of the gorilla features and human features in the Chimp.  It is obvious.

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 1:29am:

I have found Evodelusionists to be severely brainwashed, gullible and stupid.  I am sorry but I can only take so much of this garbage in one day. They think things like Ivy league means "God" to them when it is a politically run institution with victims playing the rolls of teachers and students. Have any of you actually been to Berkley?  There is no credibility give to any religious institution.  I used to live in the same neighborhood, when I lived in Oakland.

You say that he is the one giving credit to a religious institution yet the articles you point to are always written by people with strong beliefs in religion. These people also referencing a lot of religious fundamentalist papers. I can now wholly say that your arguments are totally refutable. Unless you give a .edu link or a link to a reputable database, then I will not read your links.

I am starting to wonder, do you even know what higher education means? You may boast that you have a higher IQ than the average man, it may be true, but it does not mean you are always correct.

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 9:42pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:29am: I have found Evodelusionists to be severely brainwashed, gullible and stupid.  I am sorry but I can only take so much of this garbage in one day. They think things like Ivy league means "God" to them when it is a politically run institution with victims playing the rolls of teachers and students. Have any of you actually been to Berkley?  There is no credibility give to any religious institution.  I used to live in the same neighborhood, when I lived in Oakland.  You say that he is the one giving credit to a religious institution yet the articles you point to are always written by people with strong beliefs in religion. These people also referencing a lot of religious fundamentalist papers. I can now wholly say that your arguments are totally refutable. Unless you give a .edu link or a link to a reputable database, then I will not read your links. I am starting to wonder, do you even know what higher education means? You may boast that you have a higher IQ than the average man, it may be true, but it does not mean you are always correct.

In this religious nonsense of fish evolving eventually into humans, you have to be a moron to accept this with no evidence.  This is a religious belief that has no physical evidence at all.  Yet all Evodelusionists are eventually brainwashed so much so that they accept this as some form of fact.  This is how brainwashing works on all levels.

You seem to think that a person who believes in God is immediately not to be listened to, even if they have evidence to back it?  That is how closed minded and dumb you have become.

If you only get your information from the believers in your cult, and you don't do independent research away from those looser, then you are a loser as well. 
You cannot call yourself a scientist if you shut out other extremely plausible alternatives that would negate your dumb beliefs.
It is known as wearing blinders and you got those blinders from weak and stupid humans playing, pretending to be scientists.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 11:10pm:

wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 9:42pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:29am: I have found Evodelusionists to be severely brainwashed, gullible and stupid.  I am sorry but I can only take so much of this garbage in one day. They think things like Ivy league means "God" to them when it is a politically run institution with victims playing the rolls of teachers and students. Have any of you actually been to Berkley?  There is no credibility give to any religious institution.  I used to live in the same neighborhood, when I lived in Oakland.  You say that he is the one giving credit to a religious institution yet the articles you point to are always written by people with strong beliefs in religion. These people also referencing a lot of religious fundamentalist papers. I can now wholly say that your arguments are totally refutable. Unless you give a .edu link or a link to a reputable database, then I will not read your links. I am starting to wonder, do you even know what higher education means? You may boast that you have a higher IQ than the average man, it may be true, but it does not mean you are always correct. In this religious nonsense of fish evolving eventually into humans, you have to be a moron to accept this with no evidence.  This is a religious belief that has no physical evidence at all.  Yet all Evodelusionists are eventually brainwashed so much so that they accept this as some form of fact.  This is how brainwashing works on all levels. You seem to think that a person who believes in God is immediately not to be listened to, even if they have evidence to back it?  That is how closed minded and dumb you have become. If you only get your information from the believers in your cult, and you don't do independent research away from those losers, then you are a loser as well.  You cannot call yourself a scientist if you shut out other extremely plausible alternatives that would negate your dumb beliefs. It is known as wearing blinders and you got those blinders from weak and stupid humans playing, pretending to be scientists.

Ha ha! Context!!!!
You really are unable to use your brain. Keep up the good work. And by good, I mean retarded.
You are a lucid and coherent person, although in this post the term 'lucid' means idiotic, and the word 'coherent' means nonsensical.
See, I can give words their own definitions too. Makes everything look stupid, doesn't it, FailScienceForEver?

prolescum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 6:18am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 11:10pm: wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 9:42pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:29am: I have found Evodelusionists to be severely brainwashed, gullible and stupid.  I am sorry but I can only take so much of this garbage in one day. They think things like Ivy league means "God" to them when it is a politically run institution with victims playing the rolls of teachers and students. Have any of you actually been to Berkley?  There is no credibility give to any religious institution.  I used to live in the same neighborhood, when I lived in Oakland.  You say that he is the one giving credit to a religious institution yet the articles you point to are always written by people with strong beliefs in religion. These people also referencing a lot of religious fundamentalist papers. I can now wholly say that your arguments are totally refutable. Unless you give a .edu link or a link to a reputable database, then I will not read your links. I am starting to wonder, do you even know what higher education means? You may boast that you have a higher IQ than the average man, it may be true, but it does not mean you are always correct. In this religious nonsense of fish evolving eventually into humans, you have to be a moron to accept this with no evidence.  This is a religious belief that has no physical evidence at all.  Yet all Evodelusionists are eventually brainwashed so much so that they accept this as some form of fact.  This is how brainwashing works on all levels. You seem to think that a person who believes in God is immediately not to be listened to, even if they have evidence to back it?  That is how closed minded and dumb you have become. If you only get your information from the believers in your cult, and you don't do independent research away from those losers, then you are a loser as well.  You cannot call yourself a scientist if you shut out other extremely plausible alternatives that would negate your dumb beliefs. It is known as wearing blinders and you got those blinders from weak and stupid humans playing, pretending to be scientists. Ha ha! Context!!!! You really are unable to use your brain. Keep up the good work. And by good, I mean retarded. You are a lucid and coherent person, although in this post the term 'lucid' means idiotic, and the word 'coherent' means nonsensical. See, I can give words their own definitions too. Makes everything look stupid, doesn't it, FailScienceForEver?

You childish nonsense makes good arguments against your crap beliefs. When everything else fails attack my character.
I am using this site for my book as part of my ongoing research into this religion and the effect it has on people.

The emphasis is that taking phrases out of context is what feculence for brains people do. It is called Straw Man.

You are not capable of learning nor understanding much of anything about real science because of this brainwashed delusional nonsense of Evodelusionism.

I fixed your edit job.

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 10:11pm:

wtf.. Did you replace the word, 'S H I T' for feculence? That is completely retarded.

Yeah, it's that $#!T-for-brains filter he's got on the forum. Automatically replaces such language with "tamer" and yet inappropriate words.

I have to lay down the law on this forum. 

The first post that has real defamation from any of you will cause immediate action.

You will have one time to apologize and you are gone. I am no longer going to respond to garbage hateful posts.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 4:31pm:

You will have one time to apologize and you are gone.

This one time, I will apologize for my crude and obvious attempt at bypassing your profanity filter. But seriously... that's a silly filter. Can't you choose a better vocabulary to use to replace problem words?

Dab33r wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 4:52pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 4:31pm: You will have one time to apologize and you are gone. This one time, I will apologize for my crude and obvious attempt at bypassing your profanity filter. But seriously... that's a silly filter. Can't you choose a better vocabulary to use to replace problem words?

Try being civil and just stick to the facts.  I have to say that most of the believers in this "evolution" are pretty nasty people.  I think that when my book comes out with all this hate, it will make people really not want to be near or to "sign up" for this religion.

What is the main problem with Evolution?  Nasty hateful bitter angry evolutionists.  It doesn't matter that the religious beliefs are just pseudo science, but that they hate being exposed.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

Try being civil and just stick to the facts.

While I admit that my civility has slipped in the past, and probably will again in the future... but I will never deviate from the facts. If I post something that is not factual, I will gladly post a correction as soon as I am made aware of the error. Will you do the same? Can you admit when you are wrong?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

I have to say that most of the believers in this "evolution" are pretty nasty people.

Like breeds like. Cause and effect, right? If you are nasty to others, they will be nasty to you. Calling people idiots, and telling them that they are deluded, is pretty nasty. Calling their statements "nonsense" without backing up that claim is pretty nasty. Lying about the nature of this site - calling it neutral when it is anything but - is pretty nasty. Banning people for disagreeing with you is pretty nasty.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

What is the main problem with Evolution?  Nasty hateful bitter angry evolutionists.

The fact that you think the people supporting the idea are nasty does nothing to change the validity of the idea. TO claim that it does is an Ad Hominem argument, and is fallacious.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

It doesn't matter that the religious beliefs are just pseudo science, but that they hate being exposed.

Just as you hate being exposed when you are wrong? At least when we say you are wrong, we can provide actual objective evidence to back it up. Your claims that evolution is pseudoscience, or a religion... these are opinions only, with no objective support.

You may be the moderator and have all the power... but abusing that power by claiming that you are the only one that is allowed to be nasty causes you to lose the respect of others. If you want respect, if you want credibility, you should tone down the language and actually provide evidence or arguments to support your statements.

Dab33r wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:14pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 5:55pm: Try being civil and just stick to the facts. While I admit that my civility has slipped in the past, and probably will again in the future... but I will never deviate from the facts. If I post something that is not factual, I will gladly post a correction as soon as I am made aware of the error. Will you do the same? Can you admit when you are wrong? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 5:55pm: I have to say that most of the believers in this "evolution" are pretty nasty people. Like breeds like. Cause and effect, right? If you are nasty to others, they will be nasty to you. Calling people idiots, and telling them that they are deluded, is pretty nasty. Calling their statements "nonsense" without backing up that claim is pretty nasty. Lying about the nature of this site - calling it neutral when it is anything but - is pretty nasty. Banning people for disagreeing with you is pretty nasty. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 5:55pm: What is the main problem with Evolution?  Nasty hateful bitter angry evolutionists. The fact that you think the people supporting the idea are nasty does nothing to change the validity of the idea. TO claim that it does is an Ad Hominem argument, and is fallacious. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 5:55pm: It doesn't matter that the religious beliefs are just pseudo science, but that they hate being exposed. Just as you hate being exposed when you are wrong? At least when we say you are wrong, we can provide actual objective evidence to back it up. Your claims that evolution is pseudoscience, or a religion... these are opinions only, with no objective support. You may be the moderator and have all the power... but abusing that power by claiming that you are the only one that is allowed to be nasty causes you to lose the respect of others. If you want respect, if you want credibility, you should tone down the language and actually provide evidence or arguments to support your statements.

Where are your facts?  I have yet to see any evidence for evolution.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:30pm:

Where are your facts?  I have yet to see any evidence for evolution.

Yes, you have, you just won't or can't admit to yourself or to anyone else that it was evidence for evolution.

Your challenges to evolution are pathetic. You need to quit banning people, and make this forum truly neutral like you claim it is.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 5:07am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 11:30pm: Where are your facts?  I have yet to see any evidence for evolution. Yes, you have, you just won't or can't admit to yourself or to anyone else that it was evidence for evolution. Your challenges to evolution are pathetic. You need to quit banning people, and make this forum truly neutral like you claim it is.

What you don't understand is that I have all the "facts" on this subject.  If you want to know the real facts, then I have them.
I know all the arguments all the, so called evidence, and the faith and beliefs behind the delusion.

You obviously don't know much about science, if you believe in evolution. 

My challenges are to get you to unravel the nonsense they taught you about both scientific theory, scientific methods, and what real science is.

First they teach you that scientific theory is some form of truth, when it is not.  It is just a guess, really and if it has no evidence to back it in the physical world, it is now perpetuated by this idea of falsification.

Falsification is a religious belief.  It is what cults use to perpetuate beliefs that can never be tested.  If you can't test anything about evolution, then it is not even science.
Falsification allows this crap religion to continue.

They tell you that you don't need any real evidence to prove evolution and that proof is not needed to form your religous beliefs.  They have destroyed the scientific method of testing to see if it is real.

They do not allow any form of evidence or pure logic that does not fit their beliefs to be allowed in science classes. 
This is what is known as a cult.  If you don't study all the facts and all the evidence then it is a cult.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

You obviously don't know much about science, if you believe in evolution.

You obviously don't know much about science, if you don't accept the evidence for evolution.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

My challenges are to get you to unravel the nonsense they taught you about both scientific theory, scientific methods, and what real science is.

So... in other words... you want to brainwash me. No thanks.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

First they teach you that scientific theory is some form of truth, when it is not.

No, the scientific method is not a fact, or a guess, or anything requiring evidence or argument. It is a process for determining truth, nothing more.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

Falsification is a religious belief.

Another lie. Some concepts can be disproven. They can be falsified. If they are falsified, they do not get to be considered science. The theory of evolution could be falsified in many different ways... none of those ways have occurred, and so it is still valid.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

It is what cults use to perpetuate beliefs that can never be tested.  If you can't test anything about evolution, then it is not even science.

But you can test it! The discovery of Tiktaalik, for example, was a test of the theory. The fact that we can't reproduce 3 billion years of evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen any more than the fact that we can't murder someone twice doesn't mean they weren't murdered the first time!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

They tell you that you don't need any real evidence to prove evolution and that proof is not needed to form your religous beliefs.  They have destroyed the scientific method of testing to see if it is real.

Another lie. We understand that some things are not possible to prove (in the mathematical sense of the word prove), but we also understand that sufficient evidence can be accumulated to lead to a reliable conclusion - as is the case with evolution. We do need evidence, and we do have it... and it all adds up to evolution.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

They do not allow any form of evidence or pure logic that does not fit their beliefs to be allowed in science classes.

Another lie. Any actual, credible evidence is open for discussion. What is not allowed is conjecture that has not met the requirements for credibility.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:12am:

This is what is known as a cult.  If you don't study all the facts and all the evidence then it is a cult.

Studying the evidence to determine what the facts are is not the same as teaching evidence that isn't fact. Scientists do study all of the evidence and all the facts... and some of what they study is determined not to be fact. If it's not fact, then it doesn't get to be part of the theory, and it doesn't get to be taught in science classrooms. So what? I prefer not having my children taught things that are not true.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: You obviously don't know much about science, if you believe in evolution. You obviously don't know much about science, if you don't accept the evidence for evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: My challenges are to get you to unravel the nonsense they taught you about both scientific theory, scientific methods, and what real science is. So... in other words... you want to brainwash me. No thanks. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: First they teach you that scientific theory is some form of truth, when it is not. No, the scientific method is not a fact, or a guess, or anything requiring evidence or argument. It is a process for determining truth, nothing more. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: Falsification is a religious belief. Another lie. Some concepts can be disproven. They can be falsified. If they are falsified, they do not get to be considered science. The theory of evolution could be falsified in many different ways... none of those ways have occurred, and so it is still valid. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: It is what cults use to perpetuate beliefs that can never be tested.  If you can't test anything about evolution, then it is not even science. But you can test it! The discovery of Tiktaalik, for example, was a test of the theory. The fact that we can't reproduce 3 billion years of evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen any more than the fact that we can't murder someone twice doesn't mean they weren't murdered the first time! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They tell you that you don't need any real evidence to prove evolution and that proof is not needed to form your religous beliefs.  They have destroyed the scientific method of testing to see if it is real. Another lie. We understand that some things are not possible to prove (in the mathematical sense of the word prove), but we also understand that sufficient evidence can be accumulated to lead to a reliable conclusion - as is the case with evolution. We do need evidence, and we do have it... and it all adds up to evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They do not allow any form of evidence or pure logic that does not fit their beliefs to be allowed in science classes.  Another lie. Any actual, credible evidence is open for discussion. What is not allowed is conjecture that has not met the requirements for credibility. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: This is what is known as a cult.  If you don't study all the facts and all the evidence then it is a cult. Studying the evidence to determine what the facts are is not the same as teaching evidence that isn't fact. Scientists do study all of the evidence and all the facts... and some of what they study is determined not to be fact. If it's not fact, then it doesn't get to be part of the theory, and it doesn't get to be taught in science classrooms. So what? I prefer not having my children taught things that are not true.

You have been brainwashed into false beliefs that have no basis in reality.  My job it to unbrainwash; To put you in the condition before you "walked" in that delusional trap.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 7:58pm:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 6:15pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: You obviously don't know much about science, if you believe in evolution. You obviously don't know much about science, if you don't accept the evidence for evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: My challenges are to get you to unravel the nonsense they taught you about both scientific theory, scientific methods, and what real science is. So... in other words... you want to brainwash me. No thanks. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: First they teach you that scientific theory is some form of truth, when it is not. No, the scientific method is not a fact, or a guess, or anything requiring evidence or argument. It is a process for determining truth, nothing more. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: Falsification is a religious belief. Another lie. Some concepts can be disproven. They can be falsified. If they are falsified, they do not get to be considered science. The theory of evolution could be falsified in many different ways... none of those ways have occurred, and so it is still valid. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: It is what cults use to perpetuate beliefs that can never be tested.  If you can't test anything about evolution, then it is not even science. But you can test it! The discovery of Tiktaalik, for example, was a test of the theory. The fact that we can't reproduce 3 billion years of evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen any more than the fact that we can't murder someone twice doesn't mean they weren't murdered the first time! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They tell you that you don't need any real evidence to prove evolution and that proof is not needed to form your religous beliefs.  They have destroyed the scientific method of testing to see if it is real. Another lie. We understand that some things are not possible to prove (in the mathematical sense of the word prove), but we also understand that sufficient evidence can be accumulated to lead to a reliable conclusion - as is the case with evolution. We do need evidence, and we do have it... and it all adds up to evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They do not allow any form of evidence or pure logic that does not fit their beliefs to be allowed in science classes.  Another lie. Any actual, credible evidence is open for discussion. What is not allowed is conjecture that has not met the requirements for credibility. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: This is what is known as a cult.  If you don't study all the facts and all the evidence then it is a cult. Studying the evidence to determine what the facts are is not the same as teaching evidence that isn't fact. Scientists do study all of the evidence and all the facts... and some of what they study is determined not to be fact. If it's not fact, then it doesn't get to be part of the theory, and it doesn't get to be taught in science classrooms. So what? I prefer not having my children taught things that are not true. You have been brainwashed into false beliefs that have no basis in reality.  My job it to unbrainwash; To put you in the condition before you "walked" in that delusional trap.

You have been brainwashed into false beliefs that have no basis in reality.  Therefore, my job is to unbrainwash you........to put you in the condition you were BEFORE you 'walked' into that delusional trap!.

SEE, I told you two can play your games!  Let's see how far MUMBO JUMBO gets us!

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 10:36am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 7:58pm: RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 6:15pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: You obviously don't know much about science, if you believe in evolution. You obviously don't know much about science, if you don't accept the evidence for evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: My challenges are to get you to unravel the nonsense they taught you about both scientific theory, scientific methods, and what real science is. So... in other words... you want to brainwash me. No thanks. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: First they teach you that scientific theory is some form of truth, when it is not. No, the scientific method is not a fact, or a guess, or anything requiring evidence or argument. It is a process for determining truth, nothing more. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: Falsification is a religious belief. Another lie. Some concepts can be disproven. They can be falsified. If they are falsified, they do not get to be considered science. The theory of evolution could be falsified in many different ways... none of those ways have occurred, and so it is still valid. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: It is what cults use to perpetuate beliefs that can never be tested.  If you can't test anything about evolution, then it is not even science. But you can test it! The discovery of Tiktaalik, for example, was a test of the theory. The fact that we can't reproduce 3 billion years of evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen any more than the fact that we can't murder someone twice doesn't mean they weren't murdered the first time! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They tell you that you don't need any real evidence to prove evolution and that proof is not needed to form your religous beliefs.  They have destroyed the scientific method of testing to see if it is real. Another lie. We understand that some things are not possible to prove (in the mathematical sense of the word prove), but we also understand that sufficient evidence can be accumulated to lead to a reliable conclusion - as is the case with evolution. We do need evidence, and we do have it... and it all adds up to evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They do not allow any form of evidence or pure logic that does not fit their beliefs to be allowed in science classes.  Another lie. Any actual, credible evidence is open for discussion. What is not allowed is conjecture that has not met the requirements for credibility. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: This is what is known as a cult.  If you don't study all the facts and all the evidence then it is a cult. Studying the evidence to determine what the facts are is not the same as teaching evidence that isn't fact. Scientists do study all of the evidence and all the facts... and some of what they study is determined not to be fact. If it's not fact, then it doesn't get to be part of the theory, and it doesn't get to be taught in science classrooms. So what? I prefer not having my children taught things that are not true. You have been brainwashed into false beliefs that have no basis in reality.  My job it to unbrainwash; To put you in the condition before you "walked" in that delusional trap. You have been brainwashed into false beliefs that have no basis in reality.  Therefore, my job is to unbrainwash you........to put you in the condition you were BEFORE you 'walked' into that delusional trap!. SEE, I told you two can play your games!  Let's see how far MUMBO JUMBO gets us!

In order for a child to be brainwashed, it normally requires a foundation of people around them that do the brainwashing.
They all want the best for you, so they indoctrinate you into what they think is good.
They are the guardians of their "truth".

Since there is no evidence for evolution on this planet, the only conclusion is that you succumbed to brainwashing.

Before the brainwashing you did not have this belief.  It has to be inflicted on you by society, teachers, believers.

I have never allowed anyone to inflict magical, mystical, religious nonsense on me ever.

It is part of the reason for my extreme intelligence and that all my inventions work exactly as they should, when you understand the real science behind them.

The only things that are true, are self evident, need no brainwashing and are obvious.

You cannot call yourself a atheist if you believe in magical nonsense that is not science.

The magical nonsense, is religious.  I have no religion.  I practice no religion.  I practice being free of all nonsense.

Listen to these videos and accept the reality that you are a victim of this crap religion.

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

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

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 12:10pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 10:36am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 7:58pm: RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 6:15pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: You obviously don't know much about science, if you believe in evolution. You obviously don't know much about science, if you don't accept the evidence for evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: My challenges are to get you to unravel the nonsense they taught you about both scientific theory, scientific methods, and what real science is. So... in other words... you want to brainwash me. No thanks. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: First they teach you that scientific theory is some form of truth, when it is not. No, the scientific method is not a fact, or a guess, or anything requiring evidence or argument. It is a process for determining truth, nothing more. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: Falsification is a religious belief. Another lie. Some concepts can be disproven. They can be falsified. If they are falsified, they do not get to be considered science. The theory of evolution could be falsified in many different ways... none of those ways have occurred, and so it is still valid. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: It is what cults use to perpetuate beliefs that can never be tested.  If you can't test anything about evolution, then it is not even science. But you can test it! The discovery of Tiktaalik, for example, was a test of the theory. The fact that we can't reproduce 3 billion years of evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen any more than the fact that we can't murder someone twice doesn't mean they weren't murdered the first time! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They tell you that you don't need any real evidence to prove evolution and that proof is not needed to form your religous beliefs.  They have destroyed the scientific method of testing to see if it is real. Another lie. We understand that some things are not possible to prove (in the mathematical sense of the word prove), but we also understand that sufficient evidence can be accumulated to lead to a reliable conclusion - as is the case with evolution. We do need evidence, and we do have it... and it all adds up to evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: They do not allow any form of evidence or pure logic that does not fit their beliefs to be allowed in science classes.  Another lie. Any actual, credible evidence is open for discussion. What is not allowed is conjecture that has not met the requirements for credibility. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:12am: This is what is known as a cult.  If you don't study all the facts and all the evidence then it is a cult. Studying the evidence to determine what the facts are is not the same as teaching evidence that isn't fact. Scientists do study all of the evidence and all the facts... and some of what they study is determined not to be fact. If it's not fact, then it doesn't get to be part of the theory, and it doesn't get to be taught in science classrooms. So what? I prefer not having my children taught things that are not true. You have been brainwashed into false beliefs that have no basis in reality.  My job it to unbrainwash; To put you in the condition before you "walked" in that delusional trap. You have been brainwashed into false beliefs that have no basis in reality.  Therefore, my job is to unbrainwash you........to put you in the condition you were BEFORE you 'walked' into that delusional trap!. SEE, I told you two can play your games!  Let's see how far MUMBO JUMBO gets us! In order for a child to be brainwashed, it normally requires a foundation of people around them that do the brainwashing. They all want the best for you, so they indoctrinate you into what they think is good. They are the guardians of their "truth". Since there is no evidence for evolution on this planet, the only conclusion is that you succumbed to brainwashing. Before the brainwashing you did not have this belief.  It has to be inflicted on you by society, teachers, believers. I have never allowed anyone to inflict magical, mystical, religious nonsense on me ever. It is part of the reason for my extreme intelligence and that all my inventions work exactly as they should, when you understand the real science behind them. The only things that are true, are self evident, need no brainwashing and are obvious. You cannot call yourself a atheist if you believe in magical nonsense that is not science. The magical nonsense, is religious.  I have no religion.  I practice no religion.  I practice being free of all nonsense. Listen to these videos and accept the reality that you are a victim of this crap religion. v=bQrkBtnD_UQ[/media]

In order for a child to be brainwashed, it normally requires a foundation of people around them that do the brainwashing.
They all want the best for you, so they indoctrinate you into what they think is good.
They are the guardians of their "truth".

Since there is no evidence for god=truth, I can only come to the conclusion that you have succumbed to the most disturbing feculence ever witnessed by man.

Before the brainwashing you did not have this belief.  It has to be inflicted on you by society, teachers, believers.

I have never allowed anyone to inflict magical, mystical, religious nonsense on me ever.

It is part of the reason for my extreme intelligence and that all my inventions work exactly as they should, when you understand the real science behind them.

The only things that are true, are self evident, need no brainwashing and are obvious.

You cannot call yourself a believer in god=truth if you are going to continue to believe in magical/mystical truths.   

The magical bovine%&$* is religious. I have no religion. I don't want religion.

Watch those videos and try to understand the comments that you so cleverly delete when they prove you wrong.  Let go of your human emotional garbage!!!!!!!!

If you are not seeking the truth, then your life is meaningless.

Information is not knowledge.
Albert Einstein


The only source of knowledge is experience.
Albert Einstein

Answer my question:
Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  It must be irrefutable, have no other plausibilities, and physical evidence.  It must contain no opinions by dumb ass believers.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:40pm:

If you are not seeking the truth, then your life is meaningless. Information is not knowledge. Albert Einstein The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein Answer my question: Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  It must be irrefutable, have no other plausibilities, and physical evidence.  It must contain no opinions by dumb ass believers.

I have given it to you.........and each time I do, you twist what I say to mean things like 'random is magical'...........of which I NEVER claimed nor meant.  You should know better!


Answer my question:
Why can't you believe the evidence instead of twisting it in an attempt to keep from believing it?  What is that reason that causes you to twist what I say?

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 5:54pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 2:40pm: If you are not seeking the truth, then your life is meaningless. Information is not knowledge. Albert Einstein The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein Answer my question: Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  It must be irrefutable, have no other plausibilities, and physical evidence.  It must contain no opinions by dumb ass believers. I have given it to you.........and each time I do, you twist what I say to mean things like 'random is magical'...........of which I NEVER claimed nor meant.  You should know better! Answer my question: Why can't you believe the evidence instead of twisting it in an attempt to keep from believing it?  What is that reason that causes you to twist what I say?

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that I asked for.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 7:24pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 5:54pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 2:40pm: If you are not seeking the truth, then your life is meaningless. Information is not knowledge. Albert Einstein The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein Answer my question: Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  It must be irrefutable, have no other plausibilities, and physical evidence.  It must contain no opinions by dumb ass believers. I have given it to you.........and each time I do, you twist what I say to mean things like 'random is magical'...........of which I NEVER claimed nor meant.  You should know better! Answer my question: Why can't you believe the evidence instead of twisting it in an attempt to keep from believing it?  What is that reason that causes you to twist what I say? You have not presented a single piece of evidence that I asked for.

SADLY, you CANT believe the evidence I provide.

FOR SOME STRANGE REASON!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 7:24pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 5:54pm: [quote author=3A3F3632355B0 link=1263533106/114#114 date=1266183645]If you are not seeking the truth, then your life is meaningless. Information is not knowledge. Albert Einstein The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein Answer my question: Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  It must be irrefutable, have no other plausibilities, and physical evidence.  It must contain no opinions by dumb ass believers. I have given it to you.........and each time I do, you twist what I say to mean things like 'random is magical'...........of which I NEVER claimed nor meant.  You should know better! Answer my question: Why can't you believe the evidence instead of twisting it in an attempt to keep from believing it?  What is that reason that causes you to twist what I say?

Hmmmm, also for some strange reason you AVOIDED my question like I predicted you would.

This is getting to be a RIOT! WHAHAHAHAHAHA