Proof of evolution -at last-

[rational experiences]

I know that if I plant an apple seed I will get an apple tree not an orange tree. It’s the law of sowing and reaping.

But you didn't invent either the apple tree or the orange tree.

 

[rational experiences]

Another reason. Did man see and reap and plant the crop?

Yes.

Then gas burning above yet water cooled saved the crop but damaged wilted it?

Yes.

Your science answer you applied Phi yourself in earth mass converting science and caused it.

 

[cladking]

All humans are stating the virtual advice.

A human states. A human studies. A group of humans agree best advice.

A human says I compare an ape to a human. Everyone agrees.

I then quote by human identity...agreed ....cells and changed chemical biology from ape body to human body is why a human is not an ape.

Everyone agrees. Status stated. Group says humans are a better body and consciousness than an ape.

Exact human status. Exact human stated.

Agreed.

The non agreement. How it occurred.

So if the group says status of intelligence is by agreement. Only then does it agree that non agreement is not allowed.

By group consensus who imposed what human correct answers and use of advice meant.

As some humans just like to argue for ego behaviour. Human law was enforced regarding human behaviour. About disassociation by self destructive use of human reasoning.

Indeed!

Some people know everything and some people only "know" God.

 

[Valjean]

A "religion" takes basic tenets mostly on faith. "Christianity" takes the existence of God largely on faith and "Evolutionists" takes the fossil record and the existence of missing links on faith. They also take "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" on faith.

No. Quite the opposite. Science is an anti-faith methodology.

Faith is belief without evidence. Science is belief only after objective, tested, peer reviewed evidence. Natural selection is entirely based on facts; on empirical, objective, demonstrable evidence.

All experiment and all observation shows all change is sudden.

This is simply incorrect. Please cite your sources.

There are no gradual changes in species because there are no gradual changes in environment.

But there are; and there are. These are numerous, demonstrable and unambiguous.
Where are you getting this information?

Change in species occurs during these massive changes. It would occur gradually if niches lasted long enough but they do not. Darwin made numerous bad assumptions and he wanted to believe in "survival of the fittest". What other justification was there for the way England treated her colonies and her own citizens? People believe what they want to believe and many modern "scientists" believe what they are paid to believe. Money buys "science"; "Look and See Science".

You believe what fits a preïmagined, unevidenced, false scenario.
Science has never been high-paying profession. Scientists are rarely in it for the money. The fact that they all agree on something is not an indication of any massive, world-wide conspiracy, or a payoff, but that the observable facts lead to that conclusion.

All individuals are fit and have different genes cause by localized bottlenecks that also select for behavior.

"Fit" = adapted to local conditions. If there were conditions that favored a short-legged gazelle, such a gazelle would be more fit, and more likely to be reproductively successful and pass its short legs on. If short legs decreased reproductive success, though, the same individual not be less fit.
As far as caused by bottlencecks, I don't follow. If a dog has puppies they're not all identical. Where does a bottleneck figure in?

Yes and no. Its primary function is to provide a mixture of genes for the off spring. It also helps exclude unhealthy or extremely different individuals who are more likely to pass on "bad" genes.

A woman may be justified in believing in "survival of the fittest" but not biologists.

This sounds like classical natural selection.
How are you defining "survival of the fittest?" I get the impression we're talking past each other.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Valjean]

No I didn’t say that, but I will say like begets like. A fish will not change into an ape, human or an insect.

Will it change at all?
Will all its progeny be identical? Will all its progeny be equally well adapted and reproductively successful?

As long as there is variation there will be selection. As long as there's selection certain variants will increase within the population. Changes accumulate -- endlessly. What prevents countless small changes accumulating into big changes?
How do the changes know when to stop before accumulating into an entirely new form?

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis is impossible, to use the ingredients that God created in an experiment is funny. In a Godless scenario you get to start with absolutely nothing and out of that comes what we have today.
There are no facts or proof of abiogenesis

In a God scenario you start with nothing and get what we have today. God = magic poofing; something from nothing.
What evidence is there for this implausible scenario?

 

[Valjean]

No it doesn’t, a fish has always been a fish, the flesh of a fish doesn’t become the flesh of an ape.

Endless changes won't eventually result in something very different from the prototype?

 

[Valjean]

Never has a bird become anything other than a bird, a fish has always been a fish, same with animals and humans. Science has failed to find any evidence of a this happening, no observable evidence, the only thing science says is billions of years ago such and such happened and who saw this? No one
Has anyone witnessed this change from one species to another since recorded history of man? Nope

Yes.
We've linked examples.

 

[F1fan]

I know that if I plant an apple seed I will get an apple tree not an orange tree. It’s the law of sowing and reaping.

So does a 5 year old. Your point is irrelevant.

I guess you were not being truthful when you said you know something experts in biology don't know.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

That Christians happened to have won this award does not mean or imply their religion influenced the work that led to the achievement. How about Hindu award winners? Muslim award winners? Atheist award winners? How many are men, does that suggest they are superior to women? If there were no other winners other than Christians, that might be something. But it isn't.

What?! Why you think I was suggesting anyone was 'superior' to anyone because they won the Nobel prize? I was merely pointing out that science will accept the ideas of religious people if the idea has merit and validity. I then included an example which at least purport the work of such individuals was potentially influenced by the religion they practice.

It's not difficult to use the super-computers we carry around in our pockets all day, assuming you're not a luddite. Ask it to answer your questions about who is inferior or superior. Ask it why the Wiki's focus was on Christianity if that's your concern. It took me all of ninety seconds to find the wiki page I shared, there were other articles, though I found them to be very one-sided opinion pieces by Christians who refused to accept the scientific method or peer reviewed rejection. I have faith you can accomplish the same or a greater level of research, if you wish to.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So does a 5 year old. Your point is irrelevant.

I guess you were not being truthful when you said you know something experts in biology don't know.

Obviously someone with a 5 year old intellect is smarter than those pushing abiogenesis and evolution. When have you ever in your wildest imagination believe if a dog had puppies for example that eventually one of them would be a fish, ape, fly or a bird?

 

[rational experiences]

Humans are all equal first

So if everyone gives away so called pre false use of science advice and just think for yourself.

You are a human looking at the ape.

You one self a human. If I go ughhh does it make better sense?

You choose to look at the ape as a human. You aren't any God nor are you talking on behalf of a God.

Just the human...a human..one self the human.

Your human group decides what it's group wants to human teach.

A human choice.

The many group using the title a scientist is a human. As a scientist a human.

All discussions human.

The human says I own a greater life biology and conscious presence as compared to the ape form.

By body types. Features of the bodies compared. Two self living bodies. Both a baby of its own species.

Science says human science advice is correct only in the exact place where a human expressing scientific human advice exists lives.

Taught once from and via a humans baby presence only. Holy life.

Nowhere else.

Science is exact presence only as correctly used science conditions.

Not in a past not in a future just where you live.

The word live exact.

Opposing live men said we're man's evil thoughts.

Live evil.

The type of human scientific expressions is the real dispute by self defined living humans who displace life by opposing it's reality presence present.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Abiogenesis is impossible, to use the ingredients that God created in an experiment is funny. In a Godless scenario you get to start with absolutely nothing and out of that comes what we have today.
There are no facts or proof of abiogenesis

So, I'm guessing you refute the idea that our current aviary species are the evolutionary result of the dinosaurs that managed to survive through the event that decimated their numbers?

 

[F1fan]

What?! Why you think I was suggesting anyone was 'superior' to anyone because they won the Nobel prize?

That's exactly why you picked the Nobel Prize and not local 5K race wins.

I was merely pointing out that science will accept the ideas of religious people if the idea has merit and validity.

Due to expertise in some area of science or politics or art or social activism, etc., not because they were religious.

I then included an example which at least purport the work of such individuals was potentially influenced by the religion they practice.

Potentially? So you're guessing? You don't know?

Not a very good argument.

It's not difficult to use the super-computers we carry around in our pockets all day, assuming you're not a luddite.

Once you're over 15 it gets pretty damn difficult.

Ask it to answer your questions about who is inferior or superior. Ask it why the Wiki's focus was on Christianity if that's your concern. It took me all of ninety seconds to find the wiki page I shared, there were other articles, though I found them to be very one-sided opinion pieces by Christians who refused to accept the scientific method or peer reviewed rejection. I have faith you can accomplish the same or a greater level of research, if you wish to.

What was your point, again?

 

[rational experiences]

So, I'm guessing you refute the idea that our current aviary species are the evolutionary result of the dinosaurs that managed to survive through the event that decimated their numbers?

If a Dino was a bird it was a Dino bird.

Exact advice. Body owned was a dinosaur bird. Exact by evidence data type of body is exact.

Modern birds are modern birds.

Men try to infer a dinosaur became an ape that became a human.

So if you study consciousness.

A man scientist who did not invent the presence nuclear dust mass. Does and performs a nuclear reaction as controlled exactly by his human non stop thesis. His thinking controls.

It reacts time shifts mass by destruction equalling in AI his gas heavens mind support cooled CH gases removed by AI transmitters he causes..

Clouds own the images of dinosaurs in them. They own animal and man images in them too. If you care to have a look of photographed cloud images.

Birds in modern day fallout causes get gas burnt hot water attacked die in large flock bodies.

All of the communicated advice is in his claim of I know by cloud cooling status.

As how could you know dinosaur heavens life destruction in a huge reactive atmospheric status claiming a sane thesis?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

science won't allow religious ideas to influence results.

Nobel laureates.

That's exactly why you picked the Nobel Prize and not local 5K race wins.

Because 5k races are science?

Once you're over 15 it gets pretty damn difficult.

I have no troubles using computers, I'm over fifteen. My mother is seven years your elder, she has no issue with such feats. Perhaps you should speak subjectively?

Potentially? So you're guessing? You don't know?

I always leave the possibility that I am wrong. You can think this to suggest whatever you want to believe. However, your strawman is weak and in shambles, why don't you beat up someone your own size?

What was your point, again?

Think for yourself was my point. Why do you need me to have a point? Think for yourself.

 

[Valjean]

Obviously someone with a 5 year old intellect is smarter than those pushing abiogenesis and evolution. When have you ever in your wildest imagination believe if a dog had puppies for example that eventually one of them would be a fish, ape, fly or a bird?

So its those with 5 year old intellects who are most wedded to the simplistic ideas of creationism, and the more mature and educated who favor science?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yup... They never seem to think their mike-dropping fantasy arguments through very well.

I find it realy sad that you have this authorative attitude that you can continue to bash, mock, and belittle any person with a Creationist view!
I bet you that if any Christian would say the same to you, it will be 10 minutes and a warning will be issued to them.

I am talking out of experience.
Evolution is a mind dropping argument.
You sit with the cambrian explosion for instance, and can not explain how the heck any fully functional animal came into existance, with no intermediate fossil from a nothing to a trillobite.

From my point of view, Evolutionists have to do everything in their power to somehov force their religion down everyones' throat, and they plug their ears to any alternative view.
Lets look at Brian Ford for instance.
Here we have an Evolutionist.
And an atheist.
One of your highly educated scientists.
He gives sound evidence and observed facts that it was not possible for Dinosaurs to be that tall, to have walked onl and.
He proves that they were aquatic, he proves that the Earth must have been a marshy environment with huge forrests and lakes to have supported theae dinosaurs.

Guess what?
All his evidence means nothing to the establishment!
Why, because he is proving a change in the religion of established theories which no ons should even attempt.

Evolutionists are so closeminded they resemble clay figurines unable to get anything into their ears to change their mind!

Ford spends a few chapters showing how the estanlishment of Evolutionist scientists belittle him wrongly.
The attetude of the elite priests of evolution is just horrendous!

Now, why do I use Ford to compare him in this regard?
To demonstrate that scientists are totally bias, and can not even change their views on how the world looked like during the age of dinosaurs, even if it comes from a scientist with the same religion.

Nope, Evolutionists are bullies, they are incapable to change their opinions, even if all the evidence proves them wrong, they will still try to get some explanatio to sooth their minds.

Nothing to do with science, all about your religion pal!

Oh, by the way...
Fords' theory actually fits in with the Biblical description that the Earth was much flatter, and the oceans much shallower than what we see today.

Does this mean he is a creationist?
Nope!
It only means that again the scientist discovered another peak in a mountainrange, finding a creationist waiting there for him.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence to support evolution. Sorry.

Evidence supports theories and is explained by them, but no evidence is offered as proof of any theory in science.

I fail to understand why this is so difficult to understand.

It's not difficult at this point to understand. What I have found is that there are artifacts such as fossils, and when examined scientists may say, "You see, this shows that dinosaurs lived a long time ago." And they may alsoi say, "OK, birds evolved from dinosaurs." Becaur

Only one old biology book???

No, more. But things in the evolution world keep changing their concepts and precepts, based on new discoveries or ways of considering factors. So -- what the textbooks say can be old hat soon enough. And to think I had to have the right answers when I was in school, which I did, although I was not a "science" major, although I am not against research on a pracrtical level, but I had to take science courses and as I said, I was on the honor roll plus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most believers in the ToE believe in science and the fact-based, tested conclusions of the various scientific disciplines.

Most believers in evolution also believe in abiogenesis -- but not as a part of the ToE.

Yes, I know that. It still doesn't mean that it's not part of the theory. No matter what a supporter of the Theory sans abiogenesis says.