What If...?

[theStudent]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against evolution, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about fake fossils.
In fact it has now become common place for fossils sold at museums to be checked for genuineness.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing?

For example
Remember the dinosaur hoax - the one that was said to be put together using different bones?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... ecies.html

That is quite interesting.

The fossils aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of Darwins picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other vertebrates begin identical, then diverge toward their adult forms. But these icons of evolution are notorious, too: soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckels many enemies have repeated the charge ever since. His embryos nevertheless became a textbook staple until, in 1997, a biologist accused him again, and creationist advocates of intelligent design forced his figures out. How could the most controversial pictures in the history of science have become some of the most widely seen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haec ... eks4-6.jpg
English: The pictures illustrate Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law. In the beginning embryos of different species look remarkable similar, later different characteristics develop. The images initiated controversies and charges of fraud.

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather, Does this not place evolutionists in the same position as the Christians they claim are believing in fables?

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.
Here are just a few facts about the Bible.
With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
It has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where the Gutenberg Bible was the first mass-printed book.
It was the first book ever printed using movable type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence is there however, that the book we hold in our hand today (the Bible), contains information written centuries ago.

Atheist call the book fables - the reason I have yet to find out.
Maybe one of the reasons is that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - whatever.
So they claim that Christians' belief in them and what they present is blind faith, and belief in stories.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the theory of evolution, where all they have to go by, is what scientists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.
Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing a book?

And what if Darwin, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.
Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

[theStudent]

Arguing that the fossils represented the "missing link" between apes and humans

Despite Dubois' argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional form between apes and humans. Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. In the 1930s Dubois made the claim that Pithecanthropus was built like a "giant gibbon", a much misinterpreted attempt by Dubois to prove that it was the "missing link".

Dubois's central claim was that Pithecanthropus was a transitional form between apes and humans, a so-called "missing link". Many disagreed. Some critics claimed that the bones were those of an upright walking ape, or that they belonged to a primitive human. This judgment made sense at a time when an evolutionary view of humanity had not yet been widely accepted, and scientists tended to view hominid fossils as racial variants of modern humans rather than as ancestral forms.

After Dubois let a number of scientists examine the fossils in a series of conferences held in Europe in the 1890s, they started to agree that Java Man may be a transitional form after all, but most of them thought of it as "an extinct side branch" of the human tree that had indeed descended from apes, but not evolved into humans. This interpretation eventually imposed itself and remained dominant until the 1940s.

Which part of this information says it was proven?
I see that it was accepted, after a few meetings. What do you see?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 127 by Kenisaw]

You know Kenisaw
All I can see you doing is posting comments against what I post.
My post contain links from Wikipedia - a well accepted website, as well as other links.
I have used information from other sources to argue my points.

You however, have not posted any information, with a link to backup any counter-arguement.
Are you expecting that because it comes from Kenisaw, I should accept it as gospel?

And you are the one suggesting that I have nothing, and know nothing.
Well it looks to me the other way around.

How about some evidence to back up you sermons, so filled with rebukes.

And why do you keep bringing up God?
What does God have to do with this?

[H.sapiens]

Arguing that the fossils represented the "missing link" between apes and humans

Despite Dubois' argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional form between apes and humans. Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. In the 1930s Dubois made the claim that Pithecanthropus was built like a "giant gibbon", a much misinterpreted attempt by Dubois to prove that it was the "missing link".

Dubois's central claim was that Pithecanthropus was a transitional form between apes and humans, a so-called "missing link". Many disagreed. Some critics claimed that the bones were those of an upright walking ape, or that they belonged to a primitive human. This judgment made sense at a time when an evolutionary view of humanity had not yet been widely accepted, and scientists tended to view hominid fossils as racial variants of modern humans rather than as ancestral forms.

After Dubois let a number of scientists examine the fossils in a series of conferences held in Europe in the 1890s, they started to agree that Java Man may be a transitional form after all, but most of them thought of it as "an extinct side branch" of the human tree that had indeed descended from apes, but not evolved into humans. This interpretation eventually imposed itself and remained dominant until the 1940s.

Which part of this information says it was proven?
I see that it was accepted, after a few meetings. What do you see?

I do not see why we are discussing a find made over a hundred years ago. If you want evidence of common ancestry (which guarantees the existence of a transitional species) you should look to the information available concernin the human Chromosome 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) and the Chimpanzee Genome Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

[theStudent]

Arguing that the fossils represented the "missing link" between apes and humans

Despite Dubois' argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional form between apes and humans. Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. In the 1930s Dubois made the claim that Pithecanthropus was built like a "giant gibbon", a much misinterpreted attempt by Dubois to prove that it was the "missing link".

Dubois's central claim was that Pithecanthropus was a transitional form between apes and humans, a so-called "missing link". Many disagreed. Some critics claimed that the bones were those of an upright walking ape, or that they belonged to a primitive human. This judgment made sense at a time when an evolutionary view of humanity had not yet been widely accepted, and scientists tended to view hominid fossils as racial variants of modern humans rather than as ancestral forms.

After Dubois let a number of scientists examine the fossils in a series of conferences held in Europe in the 1890s, they started to agree that Java Man may be a transitional form after all, but most of them thought of it as "an extinct side branch" of the human tree that had indeed descended from apes, but not evolved into humans. This interpretation eventually imposed itself and remained dominant until the 1940s.

Which part of this information says it was proven?
I see that it was accepted, after a few meetings. What do you see?

I do not see why we are discussing a find made over a hundred years ago. If you want evidence of common ancestry (which guarantees the existence of a transitional species) you should look to the information available concernin the human Chromosome 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) and the Chimpanzee Genome Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

At least you provided links to support your stand.
I will look at them. Thanks

[theStudent]

genome
The ordering of genes in a haploid set of chromosomes of a particular organism; the full DNA sequence of an organism

chromosomes
A threadlike strand of DNA in the cell nucleus that carries the genes in a linear order

Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia

It is expected that by comparing the genomes of humans and other apes, it will be possible to better understand what makes humans distinct from other species from a genetic perspective.

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres, producing human chromosome 2[scientific theory - fact]

since humans and chimps diverged from their common evolutionary ancestor.[scientific theory - fact] The comparable variation within human populations is 0.5 percent.

Then speculation
About 600 genes have been identified that may have been undergoing strong positive selection in the human and chimp lineages.
...after speculation
Six human chromosomal regions were found that may have been under particularly strong and coordinated selection during the past 250,000 years.
...after speculation
Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia

Chromosome 2 is consistent with the common ancestry of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2"

Are we not going in circles?
Why are they comparing Chimp-human chromosomes?
Is it not to establish their scientific theory?

Look
I already showed you how the religious scientific system works.

The scientific theory - whatever idea that is - is already a "fact".
To establish the "fact" research is done, and that research is done with a view to finding "evidence" to support the "fact".
The "evidence" is usually found, even though it is based on speculation.
Because it is impossible to have a fact without evidence.
So theory (scientific) = fact.
Evidence = speculation.
Case closed.

If you guys accept that, that's fine with me.
However, it is not my religion.

Look at the irony.
You are saying the Christians have a belief system, which is based on fables and a make believe god.
Do you see any similarities to the above? I do.

Take a look too, at the unreasonable situation.
I provided pages of information on why, and how the Bible have been proven - not speculated on, but proven - to be reliable.
No one touched one line of it to either say yeah or nay.
Not one line. Reasonable?

Still you continue to say, the Bible is a book of fables.
Well, I understand that clearly you want to keep that song in your head, becase it sounds good to you.
But it is clear that if you can't or don't want to debate the evidence, it's because it's irrefutable, and therefore cannot be debated.

I, not you, I provided lots of information, that you accept as a basis for explaining the existence of species on the planet.
I provided the information, and challenged it, and here you are still trying to prove otherwise?
Still where is the proof?
Still leading to one conclusion.
Based on that, here is the song that's playing in my head - The evidence for the theory of evolution is speculation.

You are not going to admit that these "facts" are based on speculation.
I am not seeing any verifiable proof, so it's all speculation to me, so the cycle continues.
Why?
Again, where does the evidence point - at every turn?

Origin of Species - p.179

Johnson, Philip E. Darwin on Trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991. Examines the flaws in logic in the theory of evolution and argues that these problems fatally undermine the theory. Very readable critique.

Zoologist Harold Coffin " Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12

If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.

Page content written and completed by Ben M. Waggoner and Allen G. Collins, 11/22/1994
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/cambrian.php

The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on Earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion," because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears.

November 24, 2011
http://www.livescience.com/17185-snowba ... rsity.html

A startling expansion in the diversity of life forms began about 540 million years ago, early in the Cambrian period. During this apparently sudden outburst, known as the Cambrian explosion, all the major groups of animals seemed to materialize rapidly. Scientists have debated the causes of this great flowering of life for centuries.
Now researchers have new evidence that major groups of animals actually may have existed many tens of millions of years before this seeming flurry of diversity. This early activity helped light the fuse of the later Cambrian explosion.

Again, why do many scientist not accept the evidence?

If these quote are incorect - I apologize, and they can be striken. I will personally do so.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01 ... of-demons/
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/na ... ontin.html
Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. Wikipedia

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of, for that vast project is, in its entirety, hopeless. Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.

There you have it, I might say, "Straight out of [one of] the horse's mouth."
I don't need to verify what I said then.
Truth be told.


Speaking of Origin of Species
I have another question.
Why did Darwin name his book Origin of Species if he is not talking about origin of life on earth.

What is the origin of species?
Isn't that referring to where the species came from?
So is he referring to where the species evolved from, as in the branch?
Or is he referring to the common ancestor?

If it's referring to for example the branch the baboon evolved from, can that not be called the origin of the baboon's life?
If it's referring to the common ancestor, can that not be called the origin of all life on earth?

Kenisaw.
You helped me out before.
Could you help me out with this one?

[arian]

Hello The Student.

You have no idea what a victory Evolutionists have claimed for finally having people refer to their religious items, fossils, dug-up skull&bones, 3-D graphic art by Peleoartist's of half human half ape renderings and clay sculptures as "scientific claims of evidence."

Right there we succumb to this God hating religion by saying what they programmed us to say, evolution=science, and NOTHING could be further from the truth.

We cannot allow a Satanic grave robbing skull&bones worshipping religion to replace science. Once we do that, no matter what our argument, they win because we have raised their religious beliefs to the level of science, and actually argue about their fairytale claims as if it was science!?

First thing I thought about when I saw you talking to Student is that two wrongs don't make a right. Given your post history and his, there is a pattern of intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the theory of evolution. This is no different.

Off the bat I will note that I have always found it interesting that cultists, in a vain attempt to discredit evolution, will try to lower it below the level of a scientific theory by calling it a "religion". The irony of that is rather delicious and always escapes your notice for some reason...

Here is the supposedly Top of science and technology, from the same people from the same country: 666CERN and the ultimate in engineering technological feat the Gotthard Base Tunnel, now you tell me that the celebration before all the white supremacist powers is not cultic and religious in nature?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVms0oKezg0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSDeExBtGGU

Anyway, your blustering about grave robbing ignored, your uninformed opinion above doesn't really mean much. If you think the theory of evolution is not a valid scientific theory, formulate one that better explains the billions of fossils and morphological, geological, and biological evidences that support it. Let's hear a better explanation for all the sequenced genomes and genetic research that show that all life is related and the tree of life is indeed an accurate.

I have revealed God to you guys, as the Conscious "Infinite", and how He created all things within Himself by coming up with (as in I.D.) laws, but instead of the simple binary code like we use (children just learning), He used "Words", and the rest is in Genesis of the Bible.

As for "the billions of fossils and morphological, geological, and biological evidences that support it" shows how desperate this religion is to take Our Creator out of the picture of His own Creation by any means, even to the point of taking over science and now technology along with it and assume it all under this Satanic, grave robbing skull and bones worshipping religion just as you see in those videos, of which one is actual footage of the UN members having church, and you can see them as they all worship the Beast.

Here is another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDgYODx6kMA

Now I don't necessarily support the views of the narrators, but I believe you get the picture that your BB-Evolution stories are a part of a Global One World Religious Order, and is on a verge on implementing the Final Solution of a World Wide Agenda to wipe humanity off the face of the Earth, and if possible, destroy the whole earth with it.

What are you waiting for? Don't your realize how famous you would be to find something that shows the theory of evolution cannot possibly be valid? Stun the world, starting right here on this humble website, and show us what you got...

My friend, fame is the last thing on my mind, and as for being known for standing up to the truth, especially my stand against religion I already drawn enough attention to myself (unintentionally) where they had a jet come above my head as I was driving, where I thought a huge truck was about to run me over, then pulling to the side of the road it passed me up and went and blew one of the back doors off to the SS-office I was going to. Here is proof of that too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxiynHUqLtM

Funny how the guy being interviewed says "somebody must of been disgruntled, maybe he didn't get paid?" .. well yes, it was going on 3 months I didn't get paid, after sending me back and forth to different cities, they sent me back to Casa Grande, and they still made me miss the appointment, and had to wait till they fixed the back door.

Just make sure you guys don't try to call abiogenesis "evolution" though by the way. That wouldn't be a great way to start. Just an FYI.

Did you evolve from a single quantum speck of you don't know what that 13.75 billion years ago Big-Banged in nothing for no apparent reason or NOT?

If yes, then FYI you have been evolving for the past 13.75 billion years.

"Science doesn't know everything", .. we hear them say that all the time right, .. I mean what, the claim that millions and billions of years ago humans were rats?

There weren't rats billions of years ago. Rodents came from the Glires line. Glires and Primates split from the Euarchontoglires, so apes don't even descend from rodents. But wait, who am I kidding, surely a guy like yourself that is about to blow the lid off of the evolution conspiracy with your impending improved theory already knows all that, so why am I even bothering...

Tell that to your Rev. Dawkins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-colBHOFmgQ

Or that if you just wait 4.2 billion years the single celled bacteria will evolve into a human and 8 million other species? Really? Where, .. show me? You need more time, or what?

You haven't seen it yet? We put in a big book and split it out into chapter and verse and even hired a guy to tell you what it says so all you have to do is repeat it. I thought you guys would gobble something like that up.

Since you missed that, try going to any public or educational institutional library in the entire country, or any university in the land. Maybe pick up any of the tens of thousands of books, or hundreds of thousands of journals, or millions of research papers. Or if you like, try any museum of nature. If you close your eyes and walk in any direction for about an hour you'll bound to run into something. The evidence is literally all over the place.

After your 4.2 billion year evolution claim, all we see is remnants and variations of different animals after their kind what the Lord created in Genesis, and us humans that He made in His and His Sons Image.

Science observes humans and rats, the claim that the human was a rat millions and billions of years ago is NOT science.

You're right, because that isn't what happened. But none of that matters now that your new and improved theory is just about ready to be revealed...

Just about to be revealed? It's been here for thousands of years, the most popular book ever sold called the Bible.

Observing the people around me, including myself verifies the Bible is right in EVERY claim, in every just law, in every suggestion.

So pi=3? Awesome. Please let every 6th grade math class know that they've been calculating the area of a circle wrong for the last 2000 years. I suppose you will start protesting outside barber shops now, since the "just law" about not cutting your hair should really be enforced. (Psst, don't forget to take off the mix fabrics before you do that though)...

Oh, you mixing Gods natural laws we learn of through science, and moral laws, but yes, it was all good to teach us a lesson that our deeds could never lead us to God, or that we could NEVER create a universe out of "nothing". But tell that to the Devil worshippers at 666CERN, they would rather call upon Lucifer from Hell, or blow up the earth before they would accept that. Religion, when will people get out of her?

So the Bible can be scientifically proven to be TRUE, and historically accurate.

I agree up the part where you said "so".

Well at least that's a step, a small step for you, but a huge leap considering the step is stepping outside of religion, towards the truth. Love you Kenisaw. I know man, it is so crazy out there, and getting worse by the day. Why would what I say be any different or more true than the next idea from the millions out there, right? You would have to have the desire to at least try to find God, but look at them videos, man has truly lost it. They are not only ignoring a honest search for evidence of God, but as you can see, they are calling upon Satan to burry the idea even deeper into their evolving brain.

Can you tell me what you think of those videos?

But let me see someone video a quantum speck of boson get denser and hotter IN nothing, and then Big-bang?? If it happened once, those quantum-bosons should be Big-banging all the time, 13.75 billion years later, .. and nothing yet, and they say them bosons are "Everywhere"!?

And I thought it was just Student that brought the unrelated Big Bang theory into evolution discussions. Apparently that is a cultist mainstay. Just to let you know since I don't want to see you embarrassed in any way, a boson didn't lead to the Big Bang. You may want to learn about the Big Bang, and bosons, before commenting further of either of them.

Lol, .. I know, they are sitting at the LHC's cafeteria all day just inventing different particles and kick-start particles, and now this quantum-gravity that was there before the BB, then this missing link God-particle getting denser needs an answer to why, where how it came to be? My, my, that's a lot of Starbucks coffee to put that all together and then memorize it all so when presented to the public it sounds all smart-like where the interviewer can run her hand above her head signaling to the masses, sheep, cows, rats that "forget it, you wouldn't understand anyways, this is way above your head!"

But once I examine what they are talking about, each concept and I realized it is all based on assumptions, because this whole quantum theory is a religion, has nothing to do with science that observes the world around us, just as you can see in them videos.

They are NOT about science, but about control of the masses by taking man as far away from the truth as possible. And look, it worked.

Just like single celled bacteria, there they are, yet they aren't even looking for any of them speciating. They did speciate at least 8 million times long, long time ago, but after brewing for 4.2 billion years, yet not one spotted so far speciating.

Still trying to claim that we should see a new species show up within a generation, eh arian? Nice to know you've continually ignored all the information passed your way that informed you that evolution doesn't work like that. I can t help but wonder why you continue to repeat the same tired mistakes over and over, expecting something to change. I believe they call that insanity.

LOL, .. telling me over and over again that "it don't work like that" proves nothing. If it happened 4 billion years ago, 3 billion, 2, 1, 10,000 years ago, then it would be happening every day. I also noticed that the last speciation that happened was just before recorded history, they put it to just beyond any human records, about what, like 10,000 years ago, .. "Darn it arian, you just missed that last speciation, so close too."

yes, it happened! And here is where they take some dried up pigs jaw bone and make up these fantastic stories: One day said species all of a sudden just splits because of another continent just floated off to another part of the world (Like in Disney's Dinosaur movie) or was just too lazy to get up early enough to get the first worm or whatever, and they ran out of worms, or banana, he comes home and the wife suddenly says: "No honey, not tonight. I ate this weird banana and some change came over me. I'm leaving, going to look for another species that I may be more compatible with."

Now of course these Sci-Fientists will use all kinds of words and sentences that they have been evolving for 300 years and mix it with science, which is actual observations of the existing animals, and take up sick and deformed bones of dead people or animals and make up some doozie stories, like the thousands of writings on my brothers Cave paintings, .. lol.

How many of you guys heard this before huh?

Look, if evolution from one species into another was real, it would be happening all the time. We waited 4.2 BILLION years, 8 million species have been evolving as we speak, billions of animals, apes, chimps man, yet all we have is either a poor Negro Pigmy locked in the zoo holding a chimp, or Dawkins with a family tree poster of apes and a white suburban+ housewife right smack in the middle of them. It is insulting to even a simple minded man as I am. Bu5t for anyone with actual college education, well that would be really insulting. This is why the religion results to Satan Worship like in the videos, on the World News.

I mean come on, if evolution was even remotely true, no one would have to force this idea down our throats, it would be "naturally" accepted just as everything else in nature is. But no, as if the Evolution stories were not enough, now they try to force us to believe that a man is really a woman, and not just ANY woman, but that this man can become Woman of the Year"!

Oh look, more non-evolution talk in an evolution thread. Thanks for sharing though...

Look Kenisaw, just because your religion is against searching the internet like most JW's are, doesn't mean it is not true what I tell you. YES, Gender neutrality is considered as evolution. Look at that video and you can see a she-man with his bare boobs, even if it induced, it is considered evolution.
Post Human 2.0, genital mutilation, .. oops I mean genetic mutation is also considered evolution. The Blue Brain Project, the nano-technology, all that is considered evolution.

I am not the one confusing different theories, your church is. See the zombies in the tunnel, and all them living-dead, that's all evolution. I seen babies born with another head coming out of the first ones mouth, you would not believe the interest it roused in Evolutionists. Chernobyl, Fukushima, all that was to see if evolution was possible on a world wide scale. You seen the videos, they put Marshal Applewhite to shame in demonic craziness. What Jesus-Doe-Applewhite did with a small group, these people are doing on a world wide scale.

Yep, she can share all her life experiences she had as a woman to educate other women, .. naturally. Why else would she be "The Woman of the Year"?

Oh look, more non-evolution talk in an evolution thread. Thanks for sharing though...

You have no idea what a evolutionary scifientical breakthrough this is for evolutionists. After 4.2 billion long years, finally a man evolved into a woman, .. and they had their cameras ready this time to capture the whole process from mutating his breast, hips, voice, .. come on, you know they take this as an evolutionary dream come true!

[help3434]

Is there any evolution debate on this forum that doesn't go like this? A creationist says he doesn't believe in evolution. He then tries to refute evolution by attacking a strawman that contradicts what the actual theory of evolution says and shows that he doesn't even understand the basics. This is pointed out by a half a dozen posters or so time after time, but to no avail as the creationist keeps strawmanning evolution and supporting his argument with quote mines and citations from crackpot YEC "scientists".

It would be a refreshing change of pace if a creationist actually criticized the actual theory of evolution.

[H.sapiens]

"Science doesn't know everything", .. we hear them say that all the time right, .. I mean what, the claim that millions and billions of years ago humans were rats?

There weren't rats billions of years ago. Rodents came from the Glires line. Glires and Primates split from the Euarchontoglires, so apes don't even descend from rodents. But wait, who am I kidding, surely a guy like yourself that is about to blow the lid off of the evolution conspiracy with your impending improved theory already knows all that, so why am I even bothering...[/quote]

Tell that to your Rev. Dawkins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-colBHOFmgQ
You are making a claim that is demonstrably false. Dawkins said: "We are cousins of chimpanzees, more distant cousins of gorillas, ... yet more distant cousins of rats."

Are you both a decedent of and a cousins to someone? That would mean that one of your parents had to have had an incestuous relationship with his or her uncle or aunt.

[H.sapiens]

"Science doesn't know everything", .. we hear them say that all the time right, .. I mean what, the claim that millions and billions of years ago humans were rats?

...

Tell that to your Rev. Dawkins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-colBHOFmgQ

You are making a claim that is demonstrably false. Dawkins said: "We are cousins of chimpanzees, more distant cousins of gorillas, ... yet more distant cousins of rats."

Are you both a descendant of, and a cousin to, someone? That would mean that one of your parents had to have had an incestuous relationship with his or her uncle or aunt.

[Bust Nak]

You mentioned above that "when someone is determined to find something to support their ideas, they are not interested in verifiable proof" have you considered that you might have fallen into that trap?

No
I have provided verifiable proof for every thing I stated, that can be proven.
Anything that I could not prove I mentioned why I accepted it.

Go ahead.
Give me one place where I have not done that.

Okay, lets start with the biggest one: You stated that Evolution is based on "speculation based on other speculations." The so called "verifiable proof" turns out to be nothing of the sort. Instead you posted a brief history how evolution stood the test of time, and continue to receive support in the from of genetics.

My immediate reaction was, if you recall, "I don't see what's so odd about the passage you quoted. Did it somehow lead you to the conclusion that there is a lack of empirical evidence for evolution?"

Well? Did it?

Later on you highlighted the "may" in "about 600 genes have been identified that may have been undergoing strong positive selection in the human and chimp lineages," along with other statements. Well that's just science in action. It is scientists affirming that everything in science is tentative. It's why science is still the best tool for finding how things work in our surroundings. That 600 identified genes mentioned right there, is the empirical evidence that I accused you of not taking into consideration when you dismiss evolution as "speculation based on other speculations."