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


Congratulations, you can fool a shrink.

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


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

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


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


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 19^th, 2010 at 6:30pm:


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 19^th, 2010 at 6:30pm:


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 19^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:


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.

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



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.

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

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.

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


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.

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


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?

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


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?