• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
But if we mapped my gene's and my dad's, we'd see direct, immediate descent. Not with chimpanzees!
This doesn't make sense. An examination of your genes and your father's genes would show patterns consistent with a familial relationship. It wouldn't say anything about chimpanzees one way or another in the comparison of yours and your father's DNA.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Birds are birds warm blood...dinosaurs weren't. Cold blood.
Wrong.

Ancient reptiles have exhibited blood vessels that were cold-blooded and warm-blooded, which included some archosaurs and dinosaurs.

You are basing your opinions upon on the 19th century paleontology. Since the later half of the 20th century, the views of dinosaurs being cold-blooded are in the minority.

Today’s extant reptiles may be cold-blooded, such as snakes, lizards, turtles, tortoises, Komodo dragons, etc, but the desert iguana have higher body temperature than other lizards.

In life, there are always exceptions to the norms. For example, while the majority of mammals give live birth, the platypuses are only mammals that I know of, that actually lay their eggs as reptiles and birds would.

Anyway, dinosaurs have much higher metabolism rates than lizards, more similar to the rates of birds.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Wrong.

Ancient reptiles have exhibited blood vessels that were cold-blooded and warm-blooded, which included some archosaurs and dinosaurs.

You are basing your opinions upon on the 19th century paleontology. Since the later half of the 20th century, the views of dinosaurs being cold-blooded are in the minority.

Today’s extant reptiles may be cold-blooded, such as snakes, lizards, turtles, tortoises, Komodo dragons, etc, but the desert iguana have higher body temperature than other lizards.

In life, there are always exceptions to the norms. For example, while the majority of mammals give live birth, the platypuses are only mammals that I know of, that actually lay their eggs as reptiles and birds would.

Anyway, dinosaurs have much higher metabolism rates than lizards, more similar to the rates of birds.
Humans liars...part of man's being.

Say I cannot live as a dinosaur.

Science says you can. As they want our heavens to be machine AI only types. As all theories in science today are used for all AI thesis...as warned. AI will destroy us he says.

Other sciences are all assisting all AI beliefs. As you human man aren't Gods.

Extreme cold themes are to remove lightnings hot mass to mass electricity..
Themed I'm God man I Invent it first in exact place nature's laws atmospheric mass natural....as I don't own it first.

Then he'd argue as he owns everything he says...but not mass. No man is a God you pretend you are.

You pretend you do create everything for the thesis.

As everything you think upon is a Self contradiction.

Dinosaurs massive bodies kept warmed in a humid temperate climate no ice then and a Huge garden. Desert lizards not in a garden.

You do all comparisons now in not an atmosphere of living Dinosaurs living presence and not their atmospheric type as wArm blooded yourself.

Lying as you aren't the creator a God man.

Innate aware healer medical advice human is first...a human in nature. Our heavens changes the deceased bio cell back from the dead cell that you study in observation now. It is our warning. A Living water view. Falsely advised is a theist.

Living...died...
Saved instantly also in an increased water cooled iced change. Is Not real advice. Law.

Dinosaurs living not with you and not in your type of bio atmosphere allowing our oxygenated warm blood studies. Is where you look at anything.

Church held blood in atmospheric concern to check if it still would exist because of AI satanic science lies. Men of science. Lizard science theories governing by false claims.

As dinosaurs don't give birth to dinosaur humans and you lie.

It's bad enough that a taught baby holy men is our life claim. Say a Monkey today is the human parent today.

His claim..when I was a Monkey human I couldn't make those claims. Why I'm right.

As it's a human who compares another human to a Monkey and not some man god egotist. As God I'm a scientist says I'm not a monkey either himself.

AI saves you says psychics as it pre warns you...as it's not a human controlled questions to answers data number programs. Controlled machine by humans.

It manifests extra advice in water loss life gone water mass ice increased heavens.... water regain. Space owns law won't let AI take life away as destruction as space void is law.

Water is conditioned on earth by space itself in law.

The only Ai type that destroys us is men using machines changing our heavens by man's controls..they think to use the machine. It's their human choice it's a human to human aware warning.

Man's AI will destroy us by amount of machines they control using against biology in heavens experiments.

Laws keep water present for biology not AI mass.

As men knew their machine past had already changed heavens as the mass. Why they own changing heavens again by their thought control..destruction is caused in mass.

They said human thought control Will own bio chemistry changed humans as they know as they are Satanists ..scientists. using AI the machine.

Humans psychic were not wrong they said AI causes involved saved life not as AI but involved AI and we still live today.

Only human men know exactly their own human intentions.

Mass heavens to change to status artificial is for a non red celled bio flesh living life.

They want it to be Christ which it is naturally and then man to Anti.

As they claim human women lay eggs like mammals dinosaurs.

Our babies don't crawl into a Pouch. Our ovaries aren't hard. Yet as an endometriosis sufferer I understand men scientists theoried women's ovaries to be hard shelled...didn't you brother!!!?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Well, that depends. If the test is on your knowledge of biology, and you studied for auto mechanics, you're probably not going to do better than if you didn't study at all.



And when asked for evidence of God, you tell us you have faith and then give a definition that is basically just wishful thinking.



Oh no, this is Pascal's Wager. And it's bogus. It's not pass/fail, heaven/hell, 50/50 at all.

It assumes the choices are either "no god" or "the specific God I believe in and worship" which, of course, ignores the hundreds and thousands of other God(s) people have believed in throughout history (and currently), plus ones we haven't even thought up yet. It's not the 50/50 probability you've presented here. You could be worshiping the wrong God and doing the wrong things to get into heaven/hell. And since this is all based on “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen,” we don't even have any evidence to determine anything.

No, I have faith which trust based on evidence, the evidence includes life changes, Bible codes, Bible prophecy, my relationship with God, and other areas.

Pascal's Wager could be redacted easily to "everyone believes in the numinous and in moral accountability, except for a tiny percentage of atheists."
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. Since when did you become an expert in the field?

In a case like this who do you think people should believe: A rank amateur that cannot do the math that he is disparaging or an expert that can convince other experts.

My computational skills are strong enough that I had A's in my Statistics and other courses, even in my Master's.

The rates of mutations and the rates of positive, negative and neutral mutations are known. You are (as you are about thrice weekly) guilty of a credentials fallacy.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Can you explain that math and show me where you think it goes wrong?

How are you calculating the odds of the heritability of particular genes. Can you show me?

What biological and environmental factors have you found limit a conclusion of common descent?

Unneeded since this is goal post shift from recent threads on abiogenesis, there the math is compelling.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, I have faith which trust based on evidence, the evidence includes life changes, Bible codes, Bible prophecy, my relationship with God, and other areas.

Pascal's Wager could be redacted easily to "everyone believes in the numinous and in moral accountability, except for a tiny percentage of atheists."
No, faith is what one relies on when there is no evidence. None of the examples that you cited were evidence. The Bible codes have been refuted so many times I don't know how one can refer to them without an embarrassed apology. The Bible is full of failed prophecies. And almost zero fulfilled ones. And your relationship with God appears to be no different than a relationship with an invisible friend. Take some time and learn what qualifies as evidence, especially in a scientific context,

And your attempted redaction is wrong, in fact atheists tend to have more moral accountability than Christians do. How did you get that so backwards?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My computational skills are strong enough that I had A's in my Statistics and other courses, even in my Master's.

The rates of mutations and the rates of positive, negative and neutral mutations are known. You are (as you are about thrice weekly) guilty of a credentials fallacy.
That may be true. Yet you fail at it when it comes to applying them to the sciences. Why is that? And no, you do not know what a credential fallacy is. There is no such thing. Perhaps you are conflating it with an appeal to authority fallacy? But I am not guilty of that either. You do not appear to understand why it is wrong to use poor sources in a debate. How can anyone take you seriously when you do not understand the importance of valid sources when trying to win an argument?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You addressed nothing I said here.
All you did was double down on the post I was responding to.

No, I have faith which trust based on evidence, the evidence includes life changes, Bible codes, Bible prophecy, my relationship with God, and other areas.
And as noted, when you are asked for evidence, you say you have faith. And 'round and 'round we go.

Pascal's Wager could be redacted easily to "everyone believes in the numinous and in moral accountability, except for a tiny percentage of atheists."
Um no. Not even close.
Maybe you could try addressing what I said about it.

And besides that, you and I have had numerous discussions about morality, so it's a tad disingenuous of you to suggest that I am not interested in "moral accountability," dont'cha think?
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Unneeded since this is goal post shift from recent threads on abiogenesis, there the math is compelling.
Um, it was a direct response to your post that said:
The math on how biological mechanisms would evolve people from other apes is not in any way convincing--because besides the odds of genes passed by birth, countless biological and environmental factors have to be overcome.
 

Lekatt

Member
Premium Member
Spirituality would make evolution false. A lot of people in this world believe they are spirit living in a human body. Spirit being the controlling factor in how humans came into being. Yes, I know it can not be proven in a scientific manner but that does not make it any less true. Millions have experience their spiritual nature and believe in it. Just another thought.
I like science and it has helped us humans in many ways, but I don't pay much attention to its theories.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Spirituality would make evolution false. A lot of people in this world believe they are spirit living in a human body. Spirit being the controlling factor in how humans came into being. Yes, I know it can not be proven in a scientific manner but that does not make it any less true. Millions have experience their spiritual nature and believe in it. Just another thought.
I like science and it has helped us humans in many ways, but I don't pay much attention to its theories.
How would it do that? The theory of evolution says nothing about spirituality.. It only explains how life evolved on this planet.

You appear to have made a "So what?" argument. Even if your claims are true, which is highly dubious, it would not affect the fact that we are the product of evolution.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Human men dispute God.
Human men dispute evolution.

The theist human the scientist. I dispute.

The spiritualist thesis says nothing about science.

Eternal always existed. Within it two types of being. Family and language. Language the being that came forward and went in and out of their bodies.

They communicated by singing.

They fixed O held it to observe it's presence. Language being. How the eternal O made a hole O in its own body. It's new body language gods O...lots of them are now separate. Born in destruction.

We were still in the eternal body.

We left it as a pre existing spirit life form that had owned existence forever. Converted in gods earth heavens. Now we die.

We don't own nor were we formed from mass.

The law one mass ended in space law as each and everyone self type. That did not move beyond its owned fixed inheritance.

It's only humans who by choice only alchemise.

Humans said their machines body was a God as it came out of mass that converted.

All the evidence....humans use machines. Humans use God.

Humans claim. I know I have dominion over all things.

In life spiritual versus the choice want motivation of science owning no sensible argument versus the eternal spirit.

You either believe your human thoughts stories had never owned why any presence exists.....

Or you destroy all life on planet earth for lying....no man is God....mass.

Your argument theist is that God changed.

Which supports Satanists only. That a machine as intelligence formed an entity by a metals reaction. An alien inside said machine. And then it evolved into a human life.

First two human only our parents.

So a reaction is a one of.

How did it own billions of instantly present together every diverse type body now existing? As one reaction?

He says evolution my human only thesis why I exist.

Science says I use and own exact advice now as old as I am in my human life. Human biology only.

Two living adult human biology are now. Parents ours were babies.

Humans sex...wish his parents hadn't had sex.

His life a baby born from human DNA microbial bodies only as ovary sperm.

Then origin human being data now is some skeletal bone dusts. Exact science as science use of data.

As his biological baby parents came from human DNA too.

He ignores he's self possessed as a scientist.

By human only chosen behaviours.

He told the story why a human science community destroys all life on earth.

As historic space law had stopped the suns attack star on earth.

A metal is a one of any type fixed mass.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Men with machines lie.

Maths design is first used to design by numbers a building of a machine by multi designs. A metal body highest in cosmic as a metal.

Maths. Angles. Alchemy gods earth.

Made your machine via spirit...gas and mass change.

Machine already involved earths heavens gas in its development.

Maths direct to machine science.

Human mutual human.

Man's mind an egotist does not claim law. Mutual human to human.

You say human to machine then maths beyond a machine reacting.

Machine never owned the mass you change again. God earth had.

You virtually try to minus machines past building.

Life living gas supported heavens starts dying

Is the proof.

Bio science said C 100 years is a numbered count evaluation about life on earth.

Maths counts light as a numbered sequence.

Light in fact belongs to the whole heavens mass not any one.

O 24 said men using lights count maths was contradicted by O 24 no light in a gas mass.

Heavens moved in a clear gas. As earth heated burnt gas to traject move. Said science. There is no math he concluded only zero nothing peace.

The earth's human teaching for humans life to continue to exist.

AI machine man works to the contrary.

For his machine abstracts a humans single cell ignores the whole human biology all cellular mass. Presence.

Machine man is an absolute liar. Law knew he was. Humans legal rights.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Father said.

Men of science knew that science conditions star sun changed earths biology highest origin.

Science said every nations origin human type was gone.

DNA now bio damaged direct forever in that instance. Cannot return to origin parent.

Studies studies factors says yes science proves science conditions changed earths biology.

What he lied about was the origin parent never remained origin. All human life had changed.

Human is the species type isn't a generic research. It's a word teaching one is human the species. Species human origin all changed.

Science pretended the African DNA was origin parent lied.

If they were a human origin we'd all still be negroid. But variables. All dark skinned dark hair.

A dark skin would have white hair...brown hair...red hair.

A dark skin would own blue eyes green eyes etc.

And they live the same human life changed in their nation.

As humans theists said emigration migration not science in any term is why the land in nation was inhabited by the same human anywhere.

How human theists manipulate advice to suit their human only thesis.

Star sun smaller mass attack changed earths biology.

Earth owned O rock.
Earth owned clear gas heavens.

Sun attacked everything.

Life life's mutually within that heavens type always first.

Sun star mass came attacked again isn't human controlled science.

Huge massive ground eruptions hits..earths heavens change ice mass instant then unfreeze changed life on earth.

That conclusive reasoning is not used by genetic studies. What mass as conversions involved change to biology on earth.

Wasn't just gaining star mass above.

The biggest con science ever stated.

New ground mass burnt Jesus sink holes new holes.

Science new want of ground gained mass from above opened new sink holes.

New means I want a new caused life bio attack as old had ended.

Science today is just a liar.

Reason immaculate clear gas owned life.

Sun only changed clear gas.

Water oxygen already existed formed when earths gases were alight until it became clear.

Water is a mass. Mass law water is its owned type...you cannot theory against its mass...space law owns water.

We live inside a clear heavens protected from lights burn outside in space only where the sun sits.

Alight gas a heated earth moved earth in space not heavens.

Said legal teachings human for human. Intelligent higher minds past human no man is God.

Intelligence today already converted by new star mass fall.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
That may be true. Yet you fail at it when it comes to applying them to the sciences. Why is that? And no, you do not know what a credential fallacy is. There is no such thing. Perhaps you are conflating it with an appeal to authority fallacy? But I am not guilty of that either. You do not appear to understand why it is wrong to use poor sources in a debate. How can anyone take you seriously when you do not understand the importance of valid sources when trying to win an argument?

And yet I often refer you to Google, fruitlessly: The Credentials Fallacy: What It Is and How to Respond to It – Effectiviology.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, faith is what one relies on when there is no evidence. None of the examples that you cited were evidence. The Bible codes have been refuted so many times I don't know how one can refer to them without an embarrassed apology. The Bible is full of failed prophecies. And almost zero fulfilled ones. And your relationship with God appears to be no different than a relationship with an invisible friend. Take some time and learn what qualifies as evidence, especially in a scientific context,

And your attempted redaction is wrong, in fact atheists tend to have more moral accountability than Christians do. How did you get that so backwards?

The biblical quotation cites trust based on evidence. The term you are looking for is "blind faith" as opposed to "reasonable faith".

I have reasonable faith that you are unable to read the Bible--since as quoted, it says "Faith/trust is the EVIDENCE of something hoped for..."
 
Top