The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rational experiences]

In life a human man is not an ape. Yes he proved he isn't.

Between the ape bio body data inferred compared to an owned Living human body data is compared by man in data. Now man lives and says is his owned missing link.

Stated I am not an ape. I own the information as a human life not any ape. I own it myself by data advice.

No thing is missing as he is making all statements just as the human.

Why men in science said they were God as the information of God man's presence said that an ape or monkey did not own. I did.

Now he says he will reason how it happened.

Yet all life today owns presence by sex.

So men said if an ape had sex somehow ape sex produced a human baby.

Which is bio not atmospheric.

In life human owning human baby having human sex his consciousness won't agree says it is a sick thought.

He says if water bio changed as water bio being a state as the heavens ownership then human bio was given extra biology somehow. In the apes sex act. By water but involved sex.

God and sex did it he says.

If a rational human asks why do you compare our biology...
his claim if I understand the micro status I can remove it out of earths heavens and de evolve mutate you human being.

If you become a monkey mutant it will equals earths past data of all ists. Mass change to earths body.

I find it mentally most acceptable as science destroys to learn. As I want the past claiming it was Jesus Phi.

Yet conversion to own a heavens gas is to convert earths mass matter not any gas. It was always first just matter. The scientific God de evolution conversion only. To mass.

Why he believes in human monkey mutation advice. As he wants the past scientific data he has studied to equals scientific data only.

Changes to earths God mass as an applied mass to the god body conversion of causes to equals a gas state. He said the gas released state from gods mass caused Jesus.

He wants it earth mass converted first by history and then put into earths heavens by invention. Machine causes.

 

[F1fan]

Have they found fossils of the "missing link" (or UCA) of humans/bonobos/gorillas/chimpanzees, etc.?

The notion of missing links is obsolete and no one even tries to use it as a debate option any more. The main reason is that any arbitrary organism is a link. There are no perfect species in any lineage. You need to do some reading.

 

[F1fan]

In other words, you have no substantiation for your comment except to insult me. OK. (thanks, that kind of fits the mode here...) You've proved it!

It's not an insult, you admit that you lack knowledge about a basic element of science. You can easily look up things you don't know. You don't try to use your lack of knowledge AGAINST science because you don't understand it.

It's typical of creationists to have contempt for science, especially evolution.

 

[rational experiences]

Science doesn't exist.

First is all natural life as a human. One self created by two selves human.

Science says I want the one.

First human advice self a human is the one. We however are not sciences Phi one of 2x2 calculus.

Humans only as old as humans state by human birth want to argue.

Natural human argument is first is not any theism. A human is first.

It is stated a natural human.

Why theists using all ists lie.

It is only human group coercion and mockery.ist and ism and ology.

If a Human says in my life I am everything a monkey isn't. Is correct.

Theist try to coerce humans once you personally a human lived as the monkey. Your humans first parents monkeys. Totally a monkey type.

Knowing by human studies what biology a monkey owns is not any human.

Are both the creationist and evolutionist.

Past term satan.ist.
Meaning by definition what you cannot be I will try to burn out or destroy remove by atmospheric themes. As I state what you are in science.

I look as first ist at all chemical ground dusts natural. In their natural order O God earth owned. First coercion moment.

Then you lie.

Science today uses Moses temple pyramid collider involving power plant results extra radiations thesis human body Monkey type mutation. A past form genesis human DNA cause.

Yet use whole monkey data today.

Theism God earth mass changed released its spirit gases as life was sacrificed. God chemical mass inherited gains.

Says must be machine transmissions of the ancients.

Today use very cold gases the higher atmosphere owns natural. By state higher atmosphere.

Wants it at ground state.

Takes God mass himself converts but puts it in machine. Thesis begins only thought. He unnaturally acts out physically part of his natural thesis.

However all theories are then atmospheric. We live inside heavens. Yet as first with God we live inside of water oxygen. Science not our thesis whatsoever.

Cold gases not at ground.

In the past God mass by machine causes converted the earth's body mass to release his science of God machine answers itself.

Ignored as occult advice of causes. Science did cause it before. Scientist knows he reads the advice.

His gas he manipulated first is from mass then the machine tries to ground convert God mass itself to equals his first theoried answer. Coldest gases.

As heavens owns it naturally. And Not any earth mass.

What coercing and mockery as science meant.

Science just humans pretend they are a God. Claiming I know by what I am not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you for this post.

I was pretty sure years ago that biology would probably move closer and closer to my theory as more evidence is found so apparently I was correct.

I believe they still grossly overweight the importance of "fitness" to the appearance of species and their niches. Essentially all individuals are equally fit but they will thrive under vastly different condition. This is why the various layers tend to have an entirely different set of animals.

This is what the fossil "record" is really saying and this was the interpretation of ancient scientists. They saw that behavior created species so they bred the tamest wolves to invent dogs. They interpreted the fossil records in these terms. This was their "Theory of Change in Species" and they didn't believe in "Evolution" or "survival of the fittest". If the fittest survived preferentially to other individuals then a species would approach becoming a perfect fit for their niche. This would mean ever higher speeds for predator and prey alike. "Survival of the fittest" is illogical and unevidenced but it makes a great excuse for killing and trampling poor people (or anyone who isn't wealthy) and other dispossessed.

We believe the fit survive because we want to believe.

Just pure nonsense. You don't have a theory. You have a belief system based on the erroneous notion that you know things.

What you post is pure fantasy with no basis in fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No!!! This is a belief of scientism. I don't know how many thousands of times I've said experiment underlies ALL real science and "peer review" is NOT a part of the a scientific method. Peer review is irrelevant to reality and irrelevant to experiment. "Peers" are by definition the group of individual who all share the same assumptions.



Of course there is; BY DEFINITION. Reality is perceived through one's beliefs and all Peers share one belief. Anything tjhat lies outside of their beliefs can't even be considered even when I point out that ALLKNOWN CHANGE IN SPECIES OCCURRED SUDDENLY AS A RESULT OF BEHAVIOR. It is outside the belief in "evolution" so they can't see the bolded letters.



This is the nature of ALL homo omnisciencis and it is especially true in scientism.

There is no such thing as Homo omnisciencis. You made that up. It is your pretend.

 

[rational experiences]

Human belief said creation owns bodies radiating in cold forms.
Human belief said creation destroyed converted releases radiation, as the cold form radiating was changed from its higher ownership.

Which is not creating.......science theories to apply conversions. Their theory biological evolution imposes the same, that somehow the atmospheric mass converted. As it cannot evolve.

To evolve means to be better than what it was.

Cooling is a status known advice and cooling is in fact not evolution it allows change.

In the past human bone mutations dug up bone evidence said the evolved pre existing higher atmospheric condition had changed...as first form is highest state. Ice is waters highest state. Next water and oxygen in bio living conditions.

Our first form in an iced water oxygen atmosphere is healthy human. As we live experience our own evidence.

So then you get to scientific human men chosen themes...by thinking of human men. To impose the sin of man was science and its causes....conversion as false creating. As his creating is to convert destroy. As scientific thesis the highest coldest form existed first converted changed by destruction.

Which he quotes is the law of science that he follows.

His brother a scientist arguing against science Stephen Haw a king said by my inherited mutating sacrificing life body mind and bone evidence I know you are all lying.

Now we are all humans. Humans cry and say how cruel human men were in the past temple pyramid sciences to own and witness the human baby to man life sacrificed removal again. After all stories taught Moses mutation.

Knew how evil your thesis are.

A man was witnessed being life body sacrificed and you claim that status human rights became the standing of all humanity in spirituality. To contest such cruelty.

Yet today it seems a huge human population seems to think when a human is so badly sacrificed the status saved them all.

And you ask is there a rational thinker amongst you?

So you ask questions like humans do about why others human think and believe what they believe. Since when is human sacrifice saving life?

Real answer........science.

Science says I look and I see and I know. I am advised and I use data to impose I am advised. I know what human body mutation is. And today we saw Stephen Hawking slowly die sacrificed a man and bodily arguing against science practices.

How is the modern day version different from the past human warning?

Oh that is right his name was not Jesus.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

I regularly say that, but for some reason that rarely gets noticed.


But...in any case...whether I say it or not, it doesn't really impact on much in a practical sense, does it?

 

[tas8831]

@cladking says "Survival of the fittest" is illogical and unevidenced but it makes a great excuse for killing and trampling poor people (or anyone who isn't wealthy) and other dispossessed.

Cool how frequently you misrepresent 'fitness'. I have been explaining to you for YEARS how you are wrong about it, but your high school diploma grants you uber-expert status on all things.

Like experiments. You surely have a vast collection of publications documenting your many scientific experiments re: pyramids, evolution, Jesus, etc.

WHERE
ARE
THEY????

I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).

 

[tas8831]

This is the nature of ALL homo omnisciencis and it is especially true in scientism.

There is no such taxon as homo omnisciencis - and I am shocked... SHOCKED! - that the world's only expert on ANCIENT LANGUAGE does not know that 'homo' should be capitalized.

Where are the experiments that prove humans can decide to grow a "broccas area" - and also where is the experiment providing evidence that you possess a strange idiosyncracy that prevents you from spelling a name correctly despite you having been corrected ~100 times?

Never mind - there is ample observation (no need for experimentation) proving that you are as bad a speller as you are a thinker just in this thread alone.

Oh - and what Simple Sam wrote this:

"A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."

 

[tas8831]

Have they found fossils of the "missing link" (or UCA) of humans/bonobos/gorillas/chimpanzees, etc.?

Given that the bible timeline posits the creation of Adam from dirt no more than 10000 years ago, surely it should be a simple matter for any creationist to have found all of the fossils/remains of every man from himself to Adam.

Where are the remains of your less-than-10000 year old lineage?

 

[tas8831]

Evolutionists usually graphically explain in publications that humans descended (ascended?) from gorilla/monkey looking type animals. And that's where that lineage seems to stop. With humans. At least so far.
zallinger_opener.jpg (645×430) (yalealumnimagazine.com)

Are you really implying that people living in reality should be able to already have pictures of future events?

 

[tas8831]

In other words, you have no substantiation for your comment except to insult me. OK. (thanks, that kind of fits the mode here...) You've proved it!

Are you saying that you are NOT poorly educated in science?

That is, that you are educated in science?

If so, please point to a single post in which you have demonstrated this education. Because I have yet to see a single post from you in which you make sense, much less a valid scientific point.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In life a human man is not an ape. Yes he proved he isn't.

Between the ape bio body data inferred compared to an owned Living human body data is compared by man in data. Now man lives and says is his owned missing link.

Stated I am not an ape. I own the information as a human life not any ape. I own it myself by data advice.

No thing is missing as he is making all statements just as the human.

Why men in science said they were God as the information of God man's presence said that an ape or monkey did not own. I did.

Now he says he will reason how it happened.

Yet all life today owns presence by sex.

So men said if an ape had sex somehow ape sex produced a human baby.

Which is bio not atmospheric.

In life human owning human baby having human sex his consciousness won't agree says it is a sick thought.

He says if water bio changed as water bio being a state as the heavens ownership then human bio was given extra biology somehow. In the apes sex act. By water but involved sex.

God and sex did it he says.

If a rational human asks why do you compare our biology...
his claim if I understand the micro status I can remove it out of earths heavens and de evolve mutate you human being.

If you become a monkey mutant it will equals earths past data of all ists. Mass change to earths body.

I find it mentally most acceptable as science destroys to learn. As I want the past claiming it was Jesus Phi.

Yet conversion to own a heavens gas is to convert earths mass matter not any gas. It was always first just matter. The scientific God de evolution conversion only. To mass.

Why he believes in human monkey mutation advice. As he wants the past scientific data he has studied to equals scientific data only.

Changes to earths God mass as an applied mass to the god body conversion of causes to equals a gas state. He said the gas released state from gods mass caused Jesus.

He wants it earth mass converted first by history and then put into earths heavens by invention. Machine causes.

And to the ape, we are not apes. The ape owns the apeness of its being.

As the ape gazes at its fellow apes and conjures images of itself man gazes at its fellows and conjures images of itself. Man gazes at the apes and reflects upon them while the ape gazes at man and startles itself with mirrors.

Jesus danced with apes, you know, under the shade of a Bodhi tree to the piping of Pan.

Scientists also dance with apes under the electric shade of micro-macroscopes to the tunes of equations.

And all are mirrors.

The ape reflects man reflects ape.

 

[cladking]

The peers are experts in biology. Do you have credentials that exceed these experts in biology? If not why should I listen to you?

It's impossible for one man to out vote all the Peers no matter his credentials. Nothing can, will, or has ever changed until Peers vote on a matter and it thus becomes "settled science".

Welcome to the future and the brave new world where everyone is free to believe only what Peers approve.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems with the current version of evolution is it is too dependent on the mysticism of randomness. There is a type of religious element added that is based on some unknown force of that gives you anything you need but under its own schedule. It is like a god principle. If you cannot figure out how the cell call appears you summon the god of random with math oracles.

The creationist approach uses a god that is deliberate and organized. The god of evolution is like an idiot savant who staggers around, and can fall onto good luck allowing a link to the unknown gaps; finite odds. This idiot savant God does not sit right with a theory calling itself science.

 

[cladking]

Very few people "deny the existence of God"

Look up "atheist" in the dictionary. The group of those who deny the existence of science or that knowledge can be gleaned from experiment is virtually a null set. Why would you even argue about simple facts and definitions.

Most atheists point out that the burden of proof has not been met by those that believe in God.

No. You are describing an "agnostic". The dictionary is not your friend is it?

But yes, we do know what causes evolution.

Great!!! This is progress! Now all you have to do is define "fitness" so we'll know which animal will or won't survive an encounter with a predator and then we can start making predictions about how a species will survive.

Are you aware that a lion will select an individual from a herd before it even attacks? In other words 99.9% of the animals are in little real danger if they can avoid stumbling in the path of the lion. So how does the lion's consciousness affect the odds that it selected the weakest wildebeest.

The theory of evolution is stupid, outdated, and never did describe the results of observation or experiment. Now you'll ignore this post as well because that's what all believers do: They ignore all evidence and respond by reciting doctrine. I've listed hundreds and hundreds of reasons in this thread to doubt Darwin but not one is ever addressed except to gainsay it and then to claim it never happened at all.

Once people start rejecting scientific beliefs in one area it becomes easier and easier to reject others. You say you know "what causes gravity" but if anyone asks what that is it will be nonsensical or not an answer at all. You'll say it's a gravity well like a planet or mass but this is a non answer because even a butterfly knows exactly where the center of the earth is. Birds can even feel the moon.

Change in species exists. We've seen wolves turn into dogs and grass turn into wheat. We can see eyeless animals in caves and even find fossils of what came before. But we can't determine causation if we have no idea if even one lion is going to kill one wildebeest in one encounter. Even though we can't do this you believe that we can just assume that if a proto-lion once ate a proto-wildebeest then one was more fit and the other less fit and this explains everything. You have no theory. What you have is Look and See Science. There can be no science without experiment and no knowledge that doesn't lead to understanding and creation. You have no logic and have merely induced what was believed before. It is nonsense. All the evidence, all the observation, and all the "experiments" say change in species is far more complex than the "Theory of Evolution". You can't understand this because you can't even parse my words Every sentence reads "God did it" when you try to understand what I write so you come back and tell me what doctrine is. Your beliefs are wrong because your premises are wrong.

 

[cladking]

There is no such thing as Homo omnisciencis. You made that up. It is your pretend.

And you know this how?

Homo omnisciencis is merely homo sapiens with a second speech center called the "broca's area". We are not born with this but rather it forms in the brain as we learn the new human language. The new language leads each of us to believe and to experience all of reality in terms of our beliefs. You experience your omniscience vicariously through Peers and Siri. We experience "thought" which is largely the process of comparing internal or external sensory input to our beliefs. We believe we are intelligent but plants animals are not.

 

[metis]

"Peer review" is NOT a part of the scientific method. It is irrelevant to experiment and reality.

Technically so, but the reality is that it had to be done so "charlatans", as you put some, couldn't hide their data, which had sometimes been done before such as with "Piltdown".

All science is based on experiment and no science is based on peer review.

Almost all science throughout the world now uses peer review, so you really don't know what you're talking about. It not only creates more transparency, it also sets up more honesty.

Nobody is wholly competent to judge anything and most people are wholly incompetent to judge anything outside of their expectations and beliefs.

That's nonsense. Most scientist nowadays work in conjunction with others and are often financed through organizations and donors.

What is so damn complex about this? It seems to this old timer that the schools have utterly failed to teach metaphysics or the meaning of knowledge. It seems people don't even think about such things any longer.

You may an old times, but I'm 76 and I have a graduate degree in anthropology, and I worked and taught in that field for 36 years, including doing research.

To put it another way, you're making up your own "science" so as to find an excuse to ignore that which you don't like, which is just more of an indication as to why peer review is so essential.

 

[metis]

I would avoid calling such things "science" but this doesn't mean I necessarily doubt their conclusions. I would call it "testing". It is more a form of observation than experiment.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about, as the same basic "scientific method" is standard procedure in forensics science.