Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[truthofscripture]

Really? Please point out what is wrong with my behavior, except that I point out where you are wrong or dishonest and call a spade a spade. Out of sympathy for your position I will change the objectionable word, but remember, transitional species are NOT a matter of any controversy.

One cannot point out what doesn't exist. Your false claims of dishonesty and lying on my part is abhorrent and dishonest in and of itself. I am placing you on my ignore list.

 

[David M]

I've studied it for most of my life, and what you said here does not bear any resemblence to the facts on record.

Nope, you are absolutely in error. The fossil record fully supports evolution and is packed with transitional fossils, that is a fact.

And yes, all such "transitional" species ever presented have been proven fakes using mostly dna testing. It could be said that you post the opposite of the truth.

Thanks for proving that you are either making your claims up, parroting falsehoods from a creationist site or just massively ignorant on the subject. DNA testing on transitional fossils? It is to laugh.

 

[truthofscripture]

Nope, you are absolutely in error. The fossil record fully supports evolution and is packed with transitional fossils, that is a fact.



Thanks for proving that you are either making your claims up, parroting falsehoods from a creationist site or just massively ignorant on the subject. DNA testing on transitional fossils? It is to laugh.

Your assertion about transitional fossils is totally without any merit, as no such fossils exist. In fact, now the majority of such scientists hold to intelligent creation over accidental evolution, and such accidental evolution is the thinking of an unintelligent mind using wishful thinking instead of logic.

And, little man, I make nothing up and do not post things that are in error, as I ensure they are true long before they get posted. You, however, certainly appear to be relying on the word of others for your beliefs, and certainly appear to not have any originating with you.

 

[Ouroboros]

In fact, now the majority of such scientists hold to intelligent creation over accidental evolution, and such accidental evolution is the thinking of an unintelligent mind using wishful thinking instead of logic.

Uh... No. The fact is that more than 99% of scientists hold evolution to be true.

 

[truthofscripture]

Uh... No. The fact is that more than 99% of scientists hold evolution to be true.

That's not what the scientists, and surveys of such ones show. You're telling untruths to support your false position, and it has no chance of working.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's not what the scientists, and surveys of such ones show.

Yes they do. Both scientists and surveys say it.

You're telling untruths to support your false position, and it has no chance of working.

LOL!

 

[truthofscripture]

Yes they do. Both scientists and surveys say it.


LOL!

Lying about such things will not be of any benefit to you. Neither scientists nor surveys of such scientists bear what you claim. The only way to pretend that what you say is true, is to only ask scientist who wrongly believe in evolution vs. creation, and to read surveys who only survey the minority who believe such falsehoods.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lying about such things will not be of any benefit to you. Neither scientists nor surveys of such scientists bear what you claim. The only way to pretend that what you say is true, is to only ask scientist who wrongly believe in evolution vs. creation, and to read surveys who only survey the minority who believe such falsehoods.

I'm quoting this only because it's hilarious.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

And, little man . . .

May I see the evidence to support you claim that @David M is, in fact, not large.

 

[dust1n]

Your assertion about transitional fossils is totally without any merit, as no such fossils exist. In fact, now the majority of such scientists hold to intelligent creation over accidental evolution, and such accidental evolution is the thinking of an unintelligent mind using wishful thinking instead of logic.

And, little man, I make nothing up and do not post things that are in error, as I ensure they are true long before they get posted. You, however, certainly appear to be relying on the word of others for your beliefs, and certainly appear to not have any originating with you.

Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts.[97] Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks:

• 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court[98]
• 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California[99]
• 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court[100]
• 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court[101]
• 1990 Webster v. New Lenox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals[102]
• 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals[103]
• 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana[104]
• 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota[105]
• 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court[106]
• 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California[107]

"A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[41]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anyway, the trees definitely came first. I used to be a tree-hugger so I know this to be true.

 

[truthofscripture]

Anyway, the trees definitely came first. I used to be a tree-hugger so I know this to be true.

Agreed.

 

[dust1n]

If you are going to quote and spam meaningless stuff, at least source where you got it.

 

[truthofscripture]

If you are going to quote and spam meaningless stuff, at least source where you got it.

There is nothing that I can post that you will accept, so stop now. References are within the text I posted. No more debate, since you are unable to debate, only to contradict. That isn't debate.

 

[dust1n]

There is nothing that I can post that you will accept, so stop now. No more debate, since you are unable to debate, only to contradict. That isn't debate.

All of this aside, you still stole someone's work and didn't source where you got it from.

 

[truthofscripture]

All of this aside, you still stole someone's work and didn't source where you got it from.

No, I did not. I thought I said we are done. Do you not understand? Shall I spell it out in all caps and bold it? Okay. WE ARE DONE. STOP COMMENTING TO ME.

 

[dust1n]

No, I did not. I thought I said we are done. Do you not understand? Shall I spell it out in all caps and bold it? Okay. WE ARE DONE. STOP COMMENTING TO ME.

Yeah, you did.

Evolution’s Faults Shielded
Unfortunately for the creationists, their efforts in the trial to expose the weak points of evolution were frustrated. Such shortcomings have long been apparent to open-minded students. We mention them only briefly here.
The evidence from experiments on mutations was not emphasized in the trial. Overwhelmingly, the results of such research are that mutations lead only to degeneration of the genetic pattern, producing defective specimens. They do not create new organs or new functions. They never lead to new species. The facts are contrary to the evolution theory and support the corollary principle of creation, stated in Genesis, that every kind of plant or animal can produce only its own kind. But this strong argument was neglected...

Unfortunately for the creationists, their efforts in the trial to expose the weak points of evolution were frustrated. Such shortcomings have long been apparent to open-minded students. We mention them only briefly here.

The evidence from experiments on mutations was not emphasized in the trial. Overwhelmingly, the results of such research are that mutations lead only to degeneration of the genetic pattern, producing defective specimens. They do not create new organs or new functions. They never lead to new species. The facts are contrary to the evolution theory and support the corollary principle of creation, stated in Genesis, that every kind of plant or animal can produce only its own kind. But this strong argument was neglected...

Question for agnostics and/or atheists (6)

 

[truthofscripture]

Yeah, you did.





Question for agnostics and/or atheists (6)

Since you have problems understanding the written word, I will fix it on my end. I am putting you on my ignore list.

 

[dust1n]

Since you have problems understanding the written word, I will fix it on my end. I am putting you on my ignore list.

Well, if you aren't going to fix it, I will have to report you for plagiarism.

 

[Sapiens]

One cannot point out what doesn't exist. Your false claims of dishonesty and lying on my part is abhorrent and dishonest in and of itself. I am placing you on my ignore list.

I wish I could say that you'd be missed.