I ask again - Goodscienceforyou - What would you accept as evidence for evolution? Ignoring this completely legitimate question is not an argument.

When I teach people. I teach them to never accept any form of indoctrination. I don't care who they are.  If your mother believes in crap, she will make you believe the same crap with emotional force. It is what they do.  If you father, same thing. Teachers, same emotional needs to perpetuate what they believe.

Here is how.  When someone is going to take you for a ride, and they insist that they blindfold you, don't you think you should find out where they are taking you?

When I first heard of this Theory of Evolution, I set my standards on what would be evidence that would allow me to think it was real. 

There would have to be a ton of physical evidence that was purely logical and followed no logical fallacies, with no "blanks" filled in by beliefs.

If what they say is true, the evidence would be so compelling by now, and it would be so obvious. But after 150 years of calling this garbage science, they still have nothing in evidence.

All the evidence they do have only shows a genealogy of a parent of the genus and as that genus goes along it makes minor splits, but it never changes into an entirely new creature EVER. There is no evidence of this on this planet.

In all the evidence there is only creatures that show up for what ever cause, we don't know, they remain the same morphology for as long as they exist, then go extinct.

The ones that are still here and we have found fossils on are still the same after "millions and hundreds of millions of years".  Go study this.

To have evidence you need a trail of creatures showing this. We do not have that. All we have are COMPLETE CREATURES.  There are no transitional creatures that transitioned into totally new morphology. 

I have looked with an open mind that if they do come up with anything I will look at it objectively.
However, after reading and studying this for 42 years now there is nothing that would be compelling for Evolution as any form of reality.

There is no fish that magically jumped out of the water and started breathing air. Just think about that for a while. It would have to already have lungs. The need to develop lungs could only come from "surviving" on land.

In all my life, I have never seen a fish that didn't "drown" on air only. Have you? 
There are some fish that were made to crawl across land, called mud skippers, but they don't seem to be evolving. HA! They came that way, and there is no proof otherwise.

The other thing is that if this process happened one time, then it must be happening all the time, even now.  If it is real science it would be apparent right now.

We would have examples of fish in transition to reptiles now, in the specimens we are collecting now.  These mystical causes are always deep in the mysterious past and CAN NEVER BE VERIFIED.  We live now, and not millions of years ago, so there is no way to verify this mystical nonsense.

Creature can adapt but only to a certain point, then they die. When the "evolutionary pressure" hits they die. There is nothing that could cause a creature to change rapidly enough to survive major changes to the environment.

Evolutionary pressure is not even a tested scientific premise.
It like most of the slogans of Evodelusion have never been tested, and these jerks will make this evolutionary pressure only work when they want it to.
They say that in 110,000,000 years the crocodile has never been subjected to evolutionary pressure. That is a crock alright. It is a crock of s h i t.

In real science things work or they don't.
So these weak humans will tell you that this is a transition fossil that caused humans and garbage like that, but when it comes to Crocks, they can't find anything to back up this garbage, so they tell you that crocks were not subjected to "evolutionary pressure" in 110,000,000 f**king years. 

You would have to be an idiot with brainwashed blindfold on to take that f**king trip with them.

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 10:01pm:


I have yet to see any evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable, has only one plausibility, and has physical evidence.
If you have THAT and only that, then we can talk.

You know, education isn't synonymous with brainwashing.

My language does not offend Christ.  So, I am wondering what your problem is?

"nonsense" is is not spelled out as a bad word.  I believe it is a good descriptive word.  What else offends you? That I am working to get Evolution out of science?

That I want people to find seek truth = God?

That I want science to be pure science, based on objective studies and not subjective opinions?

That I call people dumb ass, when they are?

You seem like just another Evodelusionist troll posing as a creationist.

Just so you know Evodelusionism, and Creationism are based on religious tenants that so far have no physical evidence.

If you are sane, you would keep all faith based ideas out of science.

If you want to teach religious things, teach them in private schools or at home.

Evodelusionism is a religion and therefore needs to be not taught in schools except as a study of religious philosophies.

BTW - The reason it isn't taught as simple "philosophy" is because we have actual direct EVIDENCE for evolution no matter if you want to see it or not. Mutations exist. Thus evolution happens. It's that simple.