Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Because they aren't fool enough to make certain claims into fact without further research being that it was a new find. The point was that they find lots of fossils in one place and you claimed that it doesn't happen. But i suppose all the ? you posted is accurate even though they clutching at straws.
And how you gonna tell people to google something and then get tight that they googling something?
i claimed that they are not TRANSITIONAL fossils ? . get it right. huge ? difference ? . like i said the article u posted is ? . "clutching at straws" is subjective but tech being found dating to a period it shouldnt be in is real, visceral ? that u dont need made up theories to cushion ur stupid speculation. like a nail embedded in a piece of coal. like giant and flood stories from people who could never have possibly met (according to "science"). all the real oopart hoaxes have been uncovered but there are hundreds more unexplained. im not going to post all that ? . u have google like i do. but u dont wanna look at ? but that which fortifies ur existing beliefs or lack thereof. yall have nothing real to stand on is the point. the people who rule over u made this ? up cause its easier for people to accept oppression and wickedness when the fancy themselves to be evolved apes whose morality is just fairy tales coupled with evolutionary efficiency. i mean come the ? on. as a black man u gotta be ? ? or totally inept when it comes to the study of history, propaganda and plain logic.
-
random accident formed the first dna strand..then how the ? did it "know" to reproduce? why didnt it just die?
-
one fish? lol.I KNOW [there's more than one fish] U STUPID ? . now produce more than one species
lol you're so confused and tangled up in your own ? I don't even think you know -
i claimed that they are not TRANSITIONAL fossils ? . get it right.It would be a shitload OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THAT
What i posted is a find of "shitload" of transitional fossils but they are honest enough not to make a final claim until further research and cosigning. You have no evidence against. But they have enough evidence to support and initial assessment. Sort of like the Higs Bosson particle that was actually discovered last year. Even if it's not transitional in final assessment, it's not like those haven't been found. I'm sure all you said is already debunked the same as what you posted earlier. But you go on and continue your rant. -
so. ? if he wasnt a scientist then theyre educated ? morons. u cant make ? into truth if ur rotating on the foundation of the ? . what happened to logic ? ?Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
It's been observed and it has explained the origin of species. It's not like scientists don't test theories before cosigning them. No one had to "make" it into truth.
-
I already told your ass...... Darwin attempted to formulate the scientific ideas of genectics before the discovery of the genotype......
Evolution works. Sorry.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
so. ? if he wasnt a scientist then theyre educated ? morons. u cant make ? into truth if ur rotating on the foundation of the ? . what happened to logic ? ?Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
It's been observed and it has explained the origin of species. It's not like scientists don't test theories before cosigning them. No one had to "make" it into truth.
Ya'll ? sure have a lot of "faith" in your scientists...... -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
lol...yeah out of everything i said, play semantics over a fish. yeah o.k. im not confused about ? . one fish? = one SPECIES OF FISH NOT THE ACTUAL SPECIMEN QUANTITY ONE U DUMB ? . now...produce iron clad factual accounts of more than one alleged "transitional species" dug up in one place. hell with as many species as exist on earth now...give me an example of just 50 species. proportionally, this should be no problem.
-
random accident formed the first dna strand..then how the ? did it "know" to reproduce? why didnt it just die?
Why did it not make a copy of itself?
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
Usually.... until an individual actually researches the subject or reads the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.....
Then it fails miserably..... -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
lol...yeah out of everything i said, play semantics over a fish. yeah o.k. im not confused about ? . one fish? = one SPECIES OF FISH NOT THE ACTUAL SPECIMEN QUANTITY ONE U DUMB ? . now...produce iron clad factual accounts of more than one alleged "transitional species" dug up in one place. hell with as many species as exist on earth now...give me an example of just 50 species. proportionally, this should be no problem.
I know that's not what you meant. That's not what I meant either. Maybe you're the dumb ? . I already mentioned the mudskipper which is actually something (a fish) you can see moving around today that's heading toward being classified as an amphibian. We don't really have to go digging to see transitional species. I posted a link that had what you're looking for. You probably didn't read any of it which is not surprising. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
so. ? if he wasnt a scientist then theyre educated ? morons. u cant make ? into truth if ur rotating on the foundation of the ? . what happened to logic ? ?Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
It's been observed and it has explained the origin of species. It's not like scientists don't test theories before cosigning them. No one had to "make" it into truth.
Ya'll ? sure have a lot of "faith" in your scientists......
I have faith in humanity and education -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
Usually.... until an individual actually researches the subject or reads the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.....
Then it fails miserably.....
If it fails so miserably then it should be very easy for you to debunk it which by the way you haven't been able to do so far and neither has anyone else. Sorry. -
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
so. ? if he wasnt a scientist then theyre educated ? morons. u cant make ? into truth if ur rotating on the foundation of the ? . what happened to logic ? ?Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
It's been observed and it has explained the origin of species. It's not like scientists don't test theories before cosigning them. No one had to "make" it into truth.
thats rhetoric. fossil and living animals have been observed; not evolution in real time. it is only speculated that it is the explanation for various phenomenon. People cosigning ? does not = truth. Its not like scientists dont falsify ? , make mistakes or censor their findings to support their own presuppositions. With all of that in mid, its patently dishonest for the pro-evolution crowd to act like the ? is absolute truth. if its not that, then nothing has been actually explained. only intelligent sounding speculations.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
Usually.... until an individual actually researches the subject or reads the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.....
Then it fails miserably.....
If it fails so miserably then it should be very easy for you to debunk it which by the way you haven't been able to do so far and neither has anyone else. Sorry.
why havent humans evolved to adapt to pollution? to the sun (skin cancer)? why do roaches develop immunities to poisons in succesive generations but we dont? hmmmm? you fail for cosigning some ? written in the colonial ? -or-cuff-anything- not-white era. who is the favored race? if youre black you know what that theory says about you right? -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
so. ? if he wasnt a scientist then theyre educated ? morons. u cant make ? into truth if ur rotating on the foundation of the ? . what happened to logic ? ?Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
It's been observed and it has explained the origin of species. It's not like scientists don't test theories before cosigning them. No one had to "make" it into truth.
Ya'll ? sure have a lot of "faith" in your scientists......
I have faith in humanity and education
Your faith in education is well placed....humanity, not so much..........
-
@Gold_Certificate could ether this thread
-
@Gold_Certificate could ether this thread
If "if" was a spliff or fifth, we would be high right now............
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
yes really. disagreeing with some ? does not = confusion -
Evolution takes place over a span of more than a day so we can't really observe it that way, Judah now can we? The correct answer to that would be no. I gave you examples of ancient and modern animals that you can research in your own time. You can refuse it all you like but if you are going to continue being childish, please stop requesting more evidence
-
The True Flesh wrote:Completely exclusive of any religious beliefs.......
If your theories on human evolution are so concise, why not make the evidence more accessible ???
If your tangible physical evidence of Humans evolving from lesser primates is so convincing, it should be all up in our faces from Kindergarten through 12th grade.......but it isn't is it? Why?
I see evolution for what it is, adaptations and mutations are very observable thus making "evolution" as a whole true and scientific. But when it comes to Human evolution All of the theories are a blistering embarrassment and setback for the advancement of science as a whole.
The PROVABLE/OBSERVABLE elements of evolution are enriching to everybody who seeks knowledge......
BUT THE EMBELLISHMENTS ARE A DISSERVICE TO US ALL !!!!!
before anybody comes in here with that "the similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA is proof that humans have primitive ancestors"
THAT IS WEAK SAUCE !!!!! ....... it doesn't prove sh*t
You're gonna have to come better than that.
Longtime posters know The True Flesh......New jacks will get an introduction.
You have fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and arthropods.......all of which (according to darwinists) come from a common ancestor and down the line over the corse of millions of years each class morphed into the next and this is acceptable without ANY FOSSIL evidence........well i don't just accept it.
Since it is so convincing to y'all, help persuade me!
SHOW ME WHAT IT IS THAT MADE YOU BELIEVE !!!
PEACE
1. The evidence is ver accessible; Internet, libraries, book stores etc
2. Evolution is in schools to an extent. There's too much ? from creationists side though for it to be a full blown evolution subject to be injected into schools.
3. "Evolution makes sense to me, but as for human evolution? NO! Because ? made us." LOL FOH
4. No fossil evidence? LOL ? . You've done no research bruh.
As for your human evolution, let me show you something, gotta find it. -
You ask for evidence, it exists. You'll deny it though, that's cool. -
-
Your own view is a speculation; the difference between your theory of creation and the theory of evolution is that evolution is supported by observable, documented, and rightly implied evidence.
This discussion has been closed.