Haha, another con-man idiot with no education. Wiki him, he has nothing, only a fake "ph.d" in some crap from an infamous diploma mill, "ph.d" of course bought for money. I.e just like the creationist hero Kent Hovind, who's currently serving a 10 year prison sentence, he doesn't have any education either.: )
@wizard970 Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?
@wizard970 How did the woodpecker evolve? (especially his head) Please show me any transitional fossils from regular birds to the wood pecker to show how it happened. How about how the elephant evolved it's nose among other things? Please show me any transitional fossils that show how it happened. The giraffe's long neck? Wheres the transitional fossils there?
@wizard970 How did flowering plants survive for millions of years with nothing to pollinate them before insects (ie bees) evolved? They either all must have died or somehow survived without them. And since, according to evolution they survived, why did the flowering plants become dependent on bees to pollinate them when they'd survived just fine without them? How did the peacock evolve? What did it evolve from? what will it evolve into next?
@wizard970 How did the spider evolve? what did it used to be and what will it evolve into next? Where is there an example of where humans are evolving? (because according to those science books again, evolution doesn't just stop) where are we gaining something new? (And I dont mean you gaining more excuses as to why you're not answering my questions.) How did the snake evolve? Why didn't it evolve arms and legs? Why did it's teeth evolve differently?
@wizard970 Termites eat wood but they cannot digest it, instead they have these little critters down inside their stomach that digest the cellulose for them. Now the termite cannot live without those critters and the critters cannot live without the termite.....so which one evolved first? And how did it survive until the other one evolved? And same as with the flowers and bees, why become dependent on some other organism which they did not need at first?
@tate22000 These are the same lame arguments you have been coming up with all along. You say you can disprove the theory of evolution. Well go ahead. Post the published, peer reviewed, verified [paper that will do that. Oh right you can't. Which is why today the Texas board of education voted not to include anything on intelligent design in their new textbooks.
@wizard970 How did they whale evolve? Was it a fish first or a mammal? How do you know? How did wings evolve? According to evolution they had to have evolved 4 different times.....insects, dinosaurs, bats, then birds.....why did it stop there? Why didn't humans evolve wings? Speaking of wings, evolution claims dinosaurs turned into birds. How did they survive when their arms were half dino arm half wing? How did their breathing system evolve without it killing them?
@wizard970 You are the one with nothing. You have no proof, no answers, no logic, and no coherent scientific defense of this dumb theory. You yourself admitted you have to IMAGINE it. You also admitted that if there were 250,000 papers that claimed water was made out of wood, you'd believe it. So whatever those evolution prophets publish you believe unquestionably like a good little robot who cannot think for himself. Thats why you keep bringing up those papers, you cant think 4 yourself.
@wizard970 You refer to these papers because you cannot think for yourself or dont like to think for yourself. You believe everything you are fed by them. Thats why you cant answer my questions. That requires actually thinking and coming up with answers. By the way, if your brain is nothing but a bunch of randomly assembled chemicals thrown together by accident with no real purpose intended, how do you trust your thoughts and reason? Or the thoughts of those papers' authors?
@wizard970 You've been programmed to believe evolution nonsense so well that when you are challenged on it by me with perfectly logical questions that should be easily answered if it were so well proven, your mind goes blank. You panic because you can't answer them. You were taught to believe evolution and not to question it. And your mind cannot handle questions being asked of it that you know damn well you cannot answer.
@tate22000 Actually you are the programmed one. Believing all sorts of stuff with no proof at all. Like the guy in this video, no education, no proof, just ramblings. Let me remind you that you still have not disproved the theory like you said you could. Seems like a big FAIL on your part.
@wizard970 You clearly were taught what to think and not how to think. You are demonstrating that with every refusal to answer my questions. Answer them. Defend your theory.
@tate22000 Disprove the theory. So far you have shown nothing. Put up the paper that will rock the scientific community. As I have repeated many times, you can't. All you have to go on is people like the one in this video, and a 2,000 year old book. Still a big FAIL on your part.
@wizard970 You obviously dont know how to debate anything lol Your role is supposed to be defending your theory. Thus far you have no done that. Trying over and over and over to shift the burden of proof gets you now where. The FAIL is you. You have FAILED to defend evolution, you have FAILED to show any valid evidence, you have FAILED to admit to it's lies, hoaxes, frauds, and dishonesty, and you have FAILED to answer any questions about evolution.
@wizard970 I have presented plenty of scientific evidence that you have no bothered to read since you are so close minded and hooked on a theory that you apparently cannot or will not defend. You are the one who has NOTHING because you have presented NOTHING, defended NOTHING and learned NOTHING.
@wizard970 Ole Charlie Darwin must be rolling over in his grave that one of his students will not defend his theory. Richard Dawkins would be ashamed of you. lol You wont even attempt to defend evolution. I mean come on, this is your life philosophy! And you wont even defend it? I guess it must not matter much to you.
@tate22000 To enter into a debate, you must have something. You have nothing, and for me to debate you would lend credence to that. You are extremely simple minded. Now produce the evidence you said you could. Published, peer reviewed, verified., You have nothing but fairy tales. You are a sorry example of the human race, you could just as well be a sheep. Oh that's right you are, following the shepard.
@wizard970 I have plenty. In particular, I have questions you can't answer. And that line about me being a sorry example of the human race.....sounds a bit Hitleresque doesn't it? Thats not surprising, Hitler loved evolution and you can see what he used it for. And I'm glad you brought up sheep: how did they evolve? Where is the transitional fossils to show how they evolved and from what?
@wizard970 Now, what I haven't had is a bunch of fakes and frauds like Piltdown man, java man, orce man, nebraska man, haeckel's embryos, lucy, the failed Miller-Urey experiment, and on and on and on. That would be evolution.
@wizard970 Hard to have a debate with someone (ie you) who wont even try to defend his side of the debate. Who chooses instead to hide behind other people's work (ie the 250,000 papers bla bla bla), cannot or will not think for himself, has been taught for years what to think and not how to think, and proves that by showing he does not have an original thought in his brain. Still waiting for you to come up with a coherent defense for your evolution theory.
@wizard970 lol I love how you attempt to insult my intelligence when you believe your great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was a rock. Or that you think if you leave hydrogen alone long enough it will turn into people. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
@tate22000 The theory has nothing to do with life coming from a rock, or the origin of gasses. I wish you knew what you were talking about, maybe read the theory you are going to disprove? Ah yes, Hitler, a fine Roman Catholic. Learn some history while you are at it. there is no need to defend my side, your side is the one with the problems. I am still waiting for that great paper.
@wizard970 I'm just going by what those "science books" you laud say in them. They say all life evolved from a rock 4.5 billion years ago. Its called "the origin of life." You are the one that brought the "science books" into the debate, now you are claiming thats not how it went eh? I'm still waiting for answers to my questions.
@wizard970 And no Hitler was no Catholic. Read the book Hilter's Cross to see how he attempted to hide behind Christianity. His book Mein Kampf is full of his views of a master race by speeding up the evolution theory. In the English translation of Mein Kampf, the word "evolution" is translated as "development."
@wizard970 Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion: ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Hitler even had a hit list of the races and how far along he thought they had evolved. The jews were "close to pure ape" so he sought to kill them lest their genes get swept back in the pool
@wizard970 You told me to read science books didnt you? Well all of them claim evolution started with theo origin of life from when it "rained on the rocks for millions of years" turning them into some sort of "prebiotic soup" and then the soup came alive. This is what science books say. All you are attempting to do is jump over the first stages of evolution (which there is no evidence for) straight to after life was started. Well then you dont have a coherent theory then.
@tate22000 The theory of evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. You seem to be confusing it with other theories. Your comment on Hitler is spot on. He was also a Catholic. What does that have to do with the theory that you say you can disprove?
@wizard970 I'm only repeating to you word for word what those "science books" you encouraged me to read say. And yes the theory of evolution does not have anything to where the beginning of life is concerned, that is why it is not a coherent theory. It starts with already made organisms and just assumes they got here somehow. Evolution as a whole however does state that all life came from a rock.
@wizard970 Your claim of Hilter being a Catholic is interesting to say the least. First because Keith, an evolutionist himself claims Hitler was an evolutionist and his actions certainly corroborate that. Secondly, its interesting because your evolution king pin Richard Dawkins claims Hitler was a Protestant. So are you right and hes wrong? Hmmm, not the first time evolutionists can't agree on something as there is a current war going on in your ranks that you seem unaware of.
@tate22000 According to Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death.
In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built.
@wizard970 That means nothing. If you haven't been able to tell by his actions, there was nothing Christian or Catholic about him. Hitler himself was quoted as saying : “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” Spoken like a true evolutionist. Sounds really Catholic like doesn't it? Can't argue with the man's own words.
@wizard970 Hitler was not void of messianic aspiration; he was so messianic that in 1936, the Reich Church was founded. The Nazi church did not have the Christian Cross as its symbol but the swastika; Mein Kampf, which was laid on the altar next to a sword, replaced the Bible. Only invited Nazis were allowed to give sermons in a Reich Church.
@tate22000 Cont. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."[10] His mother was a devout Catholic. The theory is very coherent, for that which it explains. It does not go into other areas, and for you to add onto it does nothing to repute it. Yes Hitler was an evolutionist, so what? Please post the paper that will disprove the theory......Oh that's right you can't, sorry I keep forgetting that you have nothing.
@wizard970 Hitler's mother being a Catholic proves nothing. Dawkins claims he was a protestant. Is he wrong or are you wrong? The theory skips over the first four stages of real evolution. It is NOT a coherent theory. The reason Hitler slaughtered 6 million jews is because of his belief in evolution. He believed them to be the least evolved from apes so he needed to eliminate them lest their inferior genes get swept back up in the pool and retard evolution.
@tate22000 "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, Gods truth!, was greater not as a sufferer but as a fighter". Adolph Hitler
It does not matter which denomination he was a member of, he was Christian.
@tate22000 So far you have come up with a lot of nothing. Where is the paper? Remember the published, peer reviewed, verified paper that disproves evolution. Still nothing but bullshit, over and over, and over. So the economic problems in Germany had nothing to do with it? But this is all off topic, which is what you folks love to do since you cannot disprove the theory.
@wizard970 And as far as 'economic problems' in Germany, Germany's economy was actually on the rebound BEFORE Hitler came along. Pity you know so little that is not so about history, you might have stumbled onto that little fact. You still have not answered any of my questions. You'd think an evolutionist like you would welcome every opportunity to show just how much smarter you are than us petty creationists by answering my questions. I guess not since you cannot think for yourself.
@wizard970 So how did the eye evolve? Your prophet Darwin didn't have a clue: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
@wizard970 Then after writing that, Darwin went on for four more pages blabbering about how he thought it could happen. Back then, as with today, he was like you: he had to IMAGINE it happening because it couldn't possibly have happened in reality.
@tate22000 Hitler has nothing to do with the theory. Please post the paper you say will change all of science. This is why you can't even win one court case, you have nothing, that is provable. You nit pick at little things, that don't pertain to the theory, and think you have a case. Well show your case.
@wizard970 Hitler has everything to do with evolution. He was an ardent evolutionist and applied it to his governing and military careers. He killed 6 million jews because he viewed them as the race that is the most ape thus the least evolved. And had he succeeded in killing all Jews he would have moved on the black people since to him, they were the next most ape and second least evolved. Hitler embodies everything about evolution and carried it out to it's bloody conclusion.
@wizard970 Also the largest mass murderer of all time, Joseph Stalin was a firm believer in evolution. Killing over 60 million people since he viewed them as inferior and should not be allowed to reproduce lest their least evolved genes get swept back up in the gene pool. Mao of China was an evolutionist, Pol Pot was an evolutionist. The Japanese leaders in WWII were evolutionists. See, ole Charlie Darwin was warned that this type of thing would happen....I guess he never listened.
@tate22000 What has any of this to do with disproving the theory? You keep conveniently forgetting Hitler was a christian. Should we bring up the Crusades? The Inquisition(where the Church handed out quotas for finding heretics) so they could take their land? None of this has anything to do with disproving the theory....which you cannot do.
@wizard970 Do you seriously bother to read any of my posts? If Hitler was a Christian, his actions surely show he was not. Not to mention, again, what Christian says this? “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” Your denial is truly astounding. I fail to see any connection with the Crusades and evolution, or the Inquisition and evolution. If you do, I'd love to hear you defend that position since you cannot defend evolution.
@wizard970 "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man. That is why Hitler tried to eliminate the Jews, as he viewed them as inferior savages that were a threat to the master race that evolution's ultimate goal is.
@wizard970 Answer my questions. Have you even read any of these 250,000 papers on evolution you keep bringing up? If you have, surely some of them must have answers to my questions on them. If they don't, well, then evolution is a pretty hollow incoherent theory that cannot answer simple questions about it. Oh yes, and you should be proud too since the Norway shooter was also a self admitted "Darwinist."
@tate22000 None of this has anything to do with the theory.
Intelligent Design
"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creation vs evolution to the existence of God vs the non-existence of God." Atty. Philip Johnson, the father of "Intelligent Design", admitting that he lies for his God in "Reclaiming America for Christ.Post the paper that disproves the theory....or are you going to just post more BS.
@tate22000 Which is why I won't answer them. You have nothing..at all. Produce the paper, but you and I know you can't. Mostly because you believe things like in this video. A talk on fossils by a man that has no education in the field. Actually you have presented no valid proof at all, just a bunch of hearsay by people with no education in the field. And by the questions you are asking I see you still have not read the theory.
@wizard970 Answer the questions. You cannot even defend your theory. You keep repeating this paper nonsense. Don't those papers answer them or address them? What do they say? You dance around questions more than any other evolutionist I've ever come across. Dodge and weave and ignoring them will not make you look any less foolish. You have no valid answers to them and apparently no one else does either. If you did, you'd have answered them right away.
@wizard970 Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
@wizard970 How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus? Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?
@wizard970 How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot?
@tate22000 The theory of evolution has nothing to do with where the elements came from. Its also not about life coming from non life. You would know that if you bothered to read it and stop spewing this ridiculous nonsense. Where is the paper. You know so much more than all these scientists, prove it.
@wizard970 How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
@wizard970 Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
@wizard970 How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.
@wizard970 Lets go back to those "science books" you laud. Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?
@wizard970 Can you give just one coercive proof, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life? Explain how the theory of evolution is scientific. Where is it observable? How has it been tested? When/where/how has it been repeated?
It has been tested and proven for 150 years. Both in the wild and in laboratories. Where is the proof you said you had to disprove it? Basically just hot air like all the rest. That's why you can't win in court, no verifiable, tested, documented, peer reviewed proof. Just ramblings like the guy in this video. What a sorry state.
@wizard970 Me thinks you have mutated and evolved selective memory loss. You have not read one thing that I have posted. That must be why you haven't come close to answering my questions. Once again, if evolution is so well proven, you should be able to answer them with flying colors. Is there not one of those 250,00 + papers that you laud on evolution that address any of them? Or are they just as full of fairy tales as the theory itself is?
@wizard970 You dont answer my questions, you dont address any points that I make, you dont make any points yourself that aren't laughed at. You clearly have no idea how to debate or even discuss anything. You call names like you are on the playground, you repeat 250,000 papers nonsense and 150 years of frauds, hoaxes and lies as if you believe if you repeat that enough itll make it true. That is pathetic. Heres another question you'll ignore: Name one valid point you have made in this debate.
You said you could disprove the theory. Well, go ahead and do it. I am not going to get into a bit by bit discussion with you. Show me the proof!!! Oh that's right you can't, because it has never been disproved. You are simply trying to keep a 2,000 year old fairy tale going. Rather than actually read the theory, or get some answers, you take the lazy way out...god did it. How pitiful.
@wizard970 I already did disprove the theory. See, this is how its supposed to work. A theory is proposed, if there is no evidence to prove it, it is abandoned. You have presented no valid evidence yet you continue to claim its true and try to shift the burden of proof. You dont answer my questions nor do you attempt in the least bit to refute any of my posts. You can't answer questions about it. THAT is lazy. THAT is pitiful.
@tate22000 If they were peer reviewed, then yes. But that is a silly proposition, and I hope you realize that. But unfortunately you probably do not. But I am still patiently waiting for the proof that is going to rock the scientific world. Go for it.
@wizard970 This is not a good argument because the traits they cite are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional, not in any true process of transition from one type of structure into another. What about the duck-billed platypus? It has traits belonging to both birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn't argue that it's a transitional link between birds and mammals because of that!
@wizard970 Comparative genetic and biological similarities between species can much more logically be explained by a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Some evolutionists use similarities of traits between species as an argument for transitional forms.
@wizard970 2 - ONLY HARM—The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not kill outright are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.
@wizard970 "The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool......
@wizard970 ....The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.
@wizard970 3 - USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out. The result is a weeding-out process. Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates mutations by killing off the organism bearing them!
@wizard970 How many posts have you made on this video? And not in ONE of them have you addressed ANY of my points, answered ANY of my questions, or given ANY valid evidence(s) for the theory of evolution. You reply as if my points and questions aren't even there! Get over it. Evolution has NO evidence. Again, if it DID have evidence, you should have been able to prove your case by now. Or does there have to be more time for more fake evidence to be thought up?
@tate22000 The next Piltdown man maybe? or new fake drawings of embryos? fairy tale feathered dinosaurs? Or how in ANY way evolution is scientific or what the theory of evolution has added to science?
@wizard970 Those are trials that were lost because people think evolution is valid because of all the fake, fraud, and dishonesty that evolution is made up of. That "Nebraska man" fraud for example which was nothing more than a tooth (a tooth!) from a wild pig was used as "evidence" to prove evolution in the Dover trial for crying out loud!
@wizard970 Creation has not deliberately put forth frauds, fakes, and lies to try to "prove" its validness. Evolution has. That alone should show you that its a the biggest hoax in history. And whats more, all those frauds and lies are still being used to teach evolution today! Why? If evolution is so well proven, why use "evidences" that have been debunked for decades and in some cases over a century now? Shouldn't they use real evidence? Oh yeah, thats right, there IS none.
@tate22000 Actually massive amounts of evidence were used in the six week Dover trial. Stop getting your information from religious sites, they are lying to you. If there is so much evidence for creationism, why does it keep loosing? I see this is a wast on your simple mind. Look the trials up on non religious sites to get the truth. I find the most truth is on sites where people are not trying to "sell" you anything, just report the facts.
@wizard970 You are certainly in no position to claim that creation has no evidence when you again CANNOT ANSWER ANY OF MY QUESTIONS. LOL For crying out loud, every one of my questions has been a variation of "where is there evidence for evolution?" and when you name one you claim does, I refute it with logic and truth and you have no response. All you have is a bunch of evolution talking points that have been drummed into your head from tax supported church of evolution.
There is no church of evolution. I will not give you a coarse on it. Look it up. You are the one who has had fraudulent things drummed into your head. There was a reason for the million dollar plus cost of the court case, don't you get it. You are doing nothing but spewing out church bs. Since you refuse to educate yourself, I will not do it for you. Look into other than religious sites, find real scientists, not the phony ones like the guy in this video.
@tate22000 It's not just one court, its at least four different ones. Evolution is the most verified theory in science. Again you are using outdated info. Coke at one time did contain cocaine. I believe in it because it is a scientifically verifiable theory. In the space of 5,000 years humans have changed a wolf into a dog, and many different breeds of dogs. Imagine what could happen given millions of years.
@wizard970 This response is a perfect example of how you are unaware of reality. Dogs and wolves are the same KIND of animal. That is NOT macro evolution. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes are the same KIND of animal. They can interbreed. Evolution teaches (in those 'science books' you claim I should read) that all the dogs in the world came from a rock!
@wizard970 And as far as what could happen in millions of years, you hit the nail right on the head: you have to IMAGINE it because it doesn't happen in reality. First you claim that evolution is the most verified theory in science, then claim you have to imagine it happening (just like the 'science books' tell you to.) That alone shows evolution is NOT science. You have to IMAGINE it happening because it is not testable, repeatable, verifiable science. Imagine. Good grief.
@wizard970 And your sentence about IMAGINING what could happen given a few million years also shows that if you can't see it, just add time......then some more time. Evolution from one KIND of animal to another KIND is impossible even if you give it trillions of years. There is no mechanism that ADDS information to a DNA code. Mutations cannot do it. As I asked a while back, where is there on humans where we are evolving something new? You didn't answer that. We aren't evolving.
@tate22000 Did you watch the video? All the evidence you say is nullified, is done by people like the one in this video, Don Patton, who has no education in this field. Show me one piece of evidence that evolution is not true. Verifiable, testable, published in identification journals and subject to peer review. You can't. All you have are these old arguments that have been settled years ago.
@wizard970 " If the designer was so good, why ar 99% of all species that ever lived on earth extinct? Design flaws?" You do realize you sent this question to yourself right?
@wizard970 You completely showed your hand in your last post. You have to IMAGINE it happening because it doesn't happen in reality. Now that you have been caught in that fact of your own admission, you are not attempting to shift the burden of proof. You want me to prove evolution is not true, (which I already have since you cant answer simple questions about it). The burden of proof is on you. I didn't pick the dumb theory to begin with. 150 years later, there is no proof, get another theory.
@wizard970 The theory of evolution has no proof, violates several scientific laws, has no mechanism to add information to an organism's DNA (which would need to happen to change one organism into another kind and not your silly dog/wolf example), has been riddled with fakes, frauds, lies, and hoaxes over 150 years, and is nothing more than a fairy tale dressed up as science. Why would anyone defend such a ridiculous theory?
@tate22000 You do remember that you said the trial was just a Hollywood hoax. Tel that to the Dover School board that paid the fine....The case of the drawings is almost 50 years old. The mistake was found in the first edition, (by other scientists)and every one since has been correct. You refute things with lies that have been drummed into your head by religion. If there is so much evidence for creation, why won't it stand up in court?
@wizard970 So the base for your logic in mindlessly talking about the Dover Trial is that since a court "rules" one way, that means its true? OJ was found not guilty, ditto for Casey Anthony, courts have also ruled that Coco Cola should be banned because is contained cocaine, banned food preservatives that had nothing wrong with them because they thought they did......want me to keep going with all the ways courts have been wrong? Courts are not infallable as you seem to claim.
@wizard970 And heres some more questions you can't answer: How did life begin on Earth? What was the first organism? How did it reproduce? What did it eat? How did the eye evolve? How did the nose, mouth, legs, back, arms, legs, feet, heart, stomach, intestines, muscles, bones nails, veins, shoulders ete evolve? How did DNA evolve? where did it come from? How about how do you evolve from a plant to an animal (according to those 'science books' you advocate, it happened) so how did it?
@wizard970 How did the woodpecker evolve? (especially his head) Please show me any transitional fossils from regular birds to the wood pecker to show how it happened. How about how the elephant evolved it's nose among other things? Please show me any transitional fossils that show how it happened. The giraffe's long neck? Wheres the transitional fossils there? You claimed earlier the fossil record proves evolution, so lets see it. And I've got plenty more when your done showing me them.
@tate22000 You still have not disproved the theory. I asked for a simple proof, which you cannot supply. This is for you
He that cannot reason is a fool.
He that will not reason is a bigot.
He that dare not reason is a slave
We have been all over this. You insist on believing things that people with no education in the field tell you, You are in fact a slave to your religion. Again I ask for one proof that evolution is not true. Only one, peer reviewed, published proof. Give it your best shot
@wizard970 The burden of proof is on YOU. I have asked you plenty of questions giving you a great opportunity to prove evolution by answering them. You either ignore or refuse to answer them. You look cannot just claim that evolution is true then not answer any questions about it. So lets hear it! Knock yourself out.
@tate22000 You might want to sit down...There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution. There is not one on creationism. There are 10 plus court cases where evolution theory has prevailed. There is not one for creationism. You ask nothing but already disproved questions. Educate yourself, read some of these papers. Writing a long answer and asking already disproved questions proves nothing.
@wizard970 lol Disproved questions? I'd settle for ANSWERED questions. Your posts are starting to not even make sense. You don't disprove questions, you answer questions. Well, that is, everyone except you. You seem to have a hard time doing that. If they have already been answered, lets here it.
@tate22000 You are the one saying the theory is wrong. Well prove it. I am sure some of those 250,000 paper writing scientists would love to hear your answer. It seems you do not know what science is. Show some form of proof that the theory is wrong.
@wizard970 Again, answer my questions. Quit stalling. You imply because 250,000 people believe something that makes it true? That is a very silly argument to make. Science is the same no matter what. It doesn't depend on consensuses, no matter how big or small. You by not answering my questions are proving evolution false. Stall some more, my questions aren't going away.
@wizard970 First, I already did. You claimed the fossil record proves evolution. I dismantled that with common sense. Secondly, ok, be careful what you wish for.....
@wizard970 Modern evolutionary theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful changes in all living creatures. And this has been responsible for all the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants and animals.
@wizard970 Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life form might greatly improve.
@wizard970 Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations that have provided us with the millions of beneficial features in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random, mutational changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life forms will emerge.Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt us to our environmental needs.
@wizard970 "The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.
@wizard970 5 - DANGEROUS ACCIDENTS—How often do accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident you have will make you feel better than you did before? Because of their random nature and negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.
@wizard970 "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]
@wizard970 Actually, a significant part of the grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a chance accident to the genes or chromosomes.
@wizard970 How did the woodpecker evolve? (especially his head) Please show me any transitional fossils from regular birds to the wood pecker to show how it happened. How about how the elephant evolved it's nose among other things? Please show me any transitional fossils that show how it happened. The giraffe's long neck? Wheres the transitional fossils there? You claimed earlier the fossil record proves evolution, so lets see it. And I've got plenty more when your done showing me them.
@wizard970 *Carl Sagan, a leading scientist and science fiction writer, says that we have no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it is too bumpy! "We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.
@wizard970 "We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.
Sagan’s idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground is about as humorous as lava fields that are generally smooth and level.
@wizard970 "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.
@wizard970 "If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174.
@wizard970 Who is that confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might wonderfully improve?
@wizard970 "We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body......
@wizard970 ..... A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
@tate22000 Add this to your list In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".
@wizard970 I really don't think you understand what Science is. Science is science regardless of what some judge happens to think or say. Science is the same whether there is a supposed "consensus" on something or not. Evolution is not testable (because it doesn't happen), is not demonstrable (because it doesn't happen), and certainly is not repeatable (because it doesn't happen.)
@wizard970 Any actual legit answers to any of those questions I've asked? Again if evolution is so well proven, you should have really no problem answering them. So lets hear it. Don't be shy. I want to hear the evolutionary explanation to every single one of them. Or do you have to IMAGINE what the answers will be first?
@wizard970 How did life begin on Earth? What was the first organism? How did it reproduce? What did it eat? How did the eye evolve? How did the nose, mouth, legs, back, arms, legs, feet, heart, stomach, intestines, muscles, bones nails, veins, shoulders ete evolve? How did DNA evolve? where did it come from? How about how do you evolve from a plant to an animal (according to those 'science books' you advocate, it happened) so how did it?
@wizard970 4 - MUTAGENS—It is a well-known fact that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and plants. It is time that the evolutionists, who praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts.
@wizard970 How can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and actions of life? If scientists really believed in mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more, not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life! But they well-know that mutations are extremely dangerous.
@wizard970 Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce species evolution: 1 - NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation.
@wizard970 And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!
@wizard970 Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bullock concludes:
"Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization."—*Helen Bullock, "Crusade to Unravel Life’s Mystery," The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13.
@wizard970 6 - INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered. Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible!
@wizard970 The your dog/wolf example, you did exactly what evolutionists do all the time: give an example of micro evolution and claim it is proof of macro evolution. It doesn't matter if you give it all the time that has ever existed, with no mechanism to add DNA information, evolution from one kind of animal into another kind cannot happen.
Haha, another con-man idiot with no education. Wiki him, he has nothing, only a fake "ph.d" in some crap from an infamous diploma mill, "ph.d" of course bought for money. I.e just like the creationist hero Kent Hovind, who's currently serving a 10 year prison sentence, he doesn't have any education either.: )
winterstellar 3 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 How did the woodpecker evolve? (especially his head) Please show me any transitional fossils from regular birds to the wood pecker to show how it happened. How about how the elephant evolved it's nose among other things? Please show me any transitional fossils that show how it happened. The giraffe's long neck? Wheres the transitional fossils there?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did flowering plants survive for millions of years with nothing to pollinate them before insects (ie bees) evolved? They either all must have died or somehow survived without them. And since, according to evolution they survived, why did the flowering plants become dependent on bees to pollinate them when they'd survived just fine without them? How did the peacock evolve? What did it evolve from? what will it evolve into next?
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 How did the spider evolve? what did it used to be and what will it evolve into next? Where is there an example of where humans are evolving? (because according to those science books again, evolution doesn't just stop) where are we gaining something new? (And I dont mean you gaining more excuses as to why you're not answering my questions.) How did the snake evolve? Why didn't it evolve arms and legs? Why did it's teeth evolve differently?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Termites eat wood but they cannot digest it, instead they have these little critters down inside their stomach that digest the cellulose for them. Now the termite cannot live without those critters and the critters cannot live without the termite.....so which one evolved first? And how did it survive until the other one evolved? And same as with the flowers and bees, why become dependent on some other organism which they did not need at first?
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 These are the same lame arguments you have been coming up with all along. You say you can disprove the theory of evolution. Well go ahead. Post the published, peer reviewed, verified [paper that will do that. Oh right you can't. Which is why today the Texas board of education voted not to include anything on intelligent design in their new textbooks.
wizard970 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 Answer my questions.
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 How did they whale evolve? Was it a fish first or a mammal? How do you know? How did wings evolve? According to evolution they had to have evolved 4 different times.....insects, dinosaurs, bats, then birds.....why did it stop there? Why didn't humans evolve wings? Speaking of wings, evolution claims dinosaurs turned into birds. How did they survive when their arms were half dino arm half wing? How did their breathing system evolve without it killing them?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 You are the one with nothing. You have no proof, no answers, no logic, and no coherent scientific defense of this dumb theory. You yourself admitted you have to IMAGINE it. You also admitted that if there were 250,000 papers that claimed water was made out of wood, you'd believe it. So whatever those evolution prophets publish you believe unquestionably like a good little robot who cannot think for himself. Thats why you keep bringing up those papers, you cant think 4 yourself.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 You refer to these papers because you cannot think for yourself or dont like to think for yourself. You believe everything you are fed by them. Thats why you cant answer my questions. That requires actually thinking and coming up with answers. By the way, if your brain is nothing but a bunch of randomly assembled chemicals thrown together by accident with no real purpose intended, how do you trust your thoughts and reason? Or the thoughts of those papers' authors?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 You've been programmed to believe evolution nonsense so well that when you are challenged on it by me with perfectly logical questions that should be easily answered if it were so well proven, your mind goes blank. You panic because you can't answer them. You were taught to believe evolution and not to question it. And your mind cannot handle questions being asked of it that you know damn well you cannot answer.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Actually you are the programmed one. Believing all sorts of stuff with no proof at all. Like the guy in this video, no education, no proof, just ramblings. Let me remind you that you still have not disproved the theory like you said you could. Seems like a big FAIL on your part.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Bla bla bla prove you can think for yourself and answer my questions. All of them.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 You clearly were taught what to think and not how to think. You are demonstrating that with every refusal to answer my questions. Answer them. Defend your theory.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Disprove the theory. So far you have shown nothing. Put up the paper that will rock the scientific community. As I have repeated many times, you can't. All you have to go on is people like the one in this video, and a 2,000 year old book. Still a big FAIL on your part.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 You obviously dont know how to debate anything lol Your role is supposed to be defending your theory. Thus far you have no done that. Trying over and over and over to shift the burden of proof gets you now where. The FAIL is you. You have FAILED to defend evolution, you have FAILED to show any valid evidence, you have FAILED to admit to it's lies, hoaxes, frauds, and dishonesty, and you have FAILED to answer any questions about evolution.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 I have presented plenty of scientific evidence that you have no bothered to read since you are so close minded and hooked on a theory that you apparently cannot or will not defend. You are the one who has NOTHING because you have presented NOTHING, defended NOTHING and learned NOTHING.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Ole Charlie Darwin must be rolling over in his grave that one of his students will not defend his theory. Richard Dawkins would be ashamed of you. lol You wont even attempt to defend evolution. I mean come on, this is your life philosophy! And you wont even defend it? I guess it must not matter much to you.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Why haven't humans or any other organism evolved the ability to live forever and be happy? Wouldn't that be a "helpful" mutation?
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 To enter into a debate, you must have something. You have nothing, and for me to debate you would lend credence to that. You are extremely simple minded. Now produce the evidence you said you could. Published, peer reviewed, verified., You have nothing but fairy tales. You are a sorry example of the human race, you could just as well be a sheep. Oh that's right you are, following the shepard.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 I have plenty. In particular, I have questions you can't answer. And that line about me being a sorry example of the human race.....sounds a bit Hitleresque doesn't it? Thats not surprising, Hitler loved evolution and you can see what he used it for. And I'm glad you brought up sheep: how did they evolve? Where is the transitional fossils to show how they evolved and from what?
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 Now, what I haven't had is a bunch of fakes and frauds like Piltdown man, java man, orce man, nebraska man, haeckel's embryos, lucy, the failed Miller-Urey experiment, and on and on and on. That would be evolution.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Hard to have a debate with someone (ie you) who wont even try to defend his side of the debate. Who chooses instead to hide behind other people's work (ie the 250,000 papers bla bla bla), cannot or will not think for himself, has been taught for years what to think and not how to think, and proves that by showing he does not have an original thought in his brain. Still waiting for you to come up with a coherent defense for your evolution theory.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 lol I love how you attempt to insult my intelligence when you believe your great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was a rock. Or that you think if you leave hydrogen alone long enough it will turn into people. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 The theory has nothing to do with life coming from a rock, or the origin of gasses. I wish you knew what you were talking about, maybe read the theory you are going to disprove? Ah yes, Hitler, a fine Roman Catholic. Learn some history while you are at it. there is no need to defend my side, your side is the one with the problems. I am still waiting for that great paper.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 I'm just going by what those "science books" you laud say in them. They say all life evolved from a rock 4.5 billion years ago. Its called "the origin of life." You are the one that brought the "science books" into the debate, now you are claiming thats not how it went eh? I'm still waiting for answers to my questions.
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 And no Hitler was no Catholic. Read the book Hilter's Cross to see how he attempted to hide behind Christianity. His book Mein Kampf is full of his views of a master race by speeding up the evolution theory. In the English translation of Mein Kampf, the word "evolution" is translated as "development."
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion: ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Hitler even had a hit list of the races and how far along he thought they had evolved. The jews were "close to pure ape" so he sought to kill them lest their genes get swept back in the pool
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 You told me to read science books didnt you? Well all of them claim evolution started with theo origin of life from when it "rained on the rocks for millions of years" turning them into some sort of "prebiotic soup" and then the soup came alive. This is what science books say. All you are attempting to do is jump over the first stages of evolution (which there is no evidence for) straight to after life was started. Well then you dont have a coherent theory then.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 The theory of evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. You seem to be confusing it with other theories. Your comment on Hitler is spot on. He was also a Catholic. What does that have to do with the theory that you say you can disprove?
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 I'm only repeating to you word for word what those "science books" you encouraged me to read say. And yes the theory of evolution does not have anything to where the beginning of life is concerned, that is why it is not a coherent theory. It starts with already made organisms and just assumes they got here somehow. Evolution as a whole however does state that all life came from a rock.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Your claim of Hilter being a Catholic is interesting to say the least. First because Keith, an evolutionist himself claims Hitler was an evolutionist and his actions certainly corroborate that. Secondly, its interesting because your evolution king pin Richard Dawkins claims Hitler was a Protestant. So are you right and hes wrong? Hmmm, not the first time evolutionists can't agree on something as there is a current war going on in your ranks that you seem unaware of.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 According to Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death.
In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 That means nothing. If you haven't been able to tell by his actions, there was nothing Christian or Catholic about him. Hitler himself was quoted as saying : “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” Spoken like a true evolutionist. Sounds really Catholic like doesn't it? Can't argue with the man's own words.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Hitler was not void of messianic aspiration; he was so messianic that in 1936, the Reich Church was founded. The Nazi church did not have the Christian Cross as its symbol but the swastika; Mein Kampf, which was laid on the altar next to a sword, replaced the Bible. Only invited Nazis were allowed to give sermons in a Reich Church.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Cont. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."[10] His mother was a devout Catholic. The theory is very coherent, for that which it explains. It does not go into other areas, and for you to add onto it does nothing to repute it. Yes Hitler was an evolutionist, so what? Please post the paper that will disprove the theory......Oh that's right you can't, sorry I keep forgetting that you have nothing.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Hitler's mother being a Catholic proves nothing. Dawkins claims he was a protestant. Is he wrong or are you wrong? The theory skips over the first four stages of real evolution. It is NOT a coherent theory. The reason Hitler slaughtered 6 million jews is because of his belief in evolution. He believed them to be the least evolved from apes so he needed to eliminate them lest their inferior genes get swept back up in the pool and retard evolution.
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tate22000 "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, Gods truth!, was greater not as a sufferer but as a fighter". Adolph Hitler
It does not matter which denomination he was a member of, he was Christian.
wizard970 7 months ago
@tate22000 So far you have come up with a lot of nothing. Where is the paper? Remember the published, peer reviewed, verified paper that disproves evolution. Still nothing but bullshit, over and over, and over. So the economic problems in Germany had nothing to do with it? But this is all off topic, which is what you folks love to do since you cannot disprove the theory.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 And as far as 'economic problems' in Germany, Germany's economy was actually on the rebound BEFORE Hitler came along. Pity you know so little that is not so about history, you might have stumbled onto that little fact. You still have not answered any of my questions. You'd think an evolutionist like you would welcome every opportunity to show just how much smarter you are than us petty creationists by answering my questions. I guess not since you cannot think for yourself.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 So how did the eye evolve? Your prophet Darwin didn't have a clue: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
Chapter - Difficulties With The Theory
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Then after writing that, Darwin went on for four more pages blabbering about how he thought it could happen. Back then, as with today, he was like you: he had to IMAGINE it happening because it couldn't possibly have happened in reality.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Hitler has nothing to do with the theory. Please post the paper you say will change all of science. This is why you can't even win one court case, you have nothing, that is provable. You nit pick at little things, that don't pertain to the theory, and think you have a case. Well show your case.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Hitler has everything to do with evolution. He was an ardent evolutionist and applied it to his governing and military careers. He killed 6 million jews because he viewed them as the race that is the most ape thus the least evolved. And had he succeeded in killing all Jews he would have moved on the black people since to him, they were the next most ape and second least evolved. Hitler embodies everything about evolution and carried it out to it's bloody conclusion.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did the eye evolve?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Also the largest mass murderer of all time, Joseph Stalin was a firm believer in evolution. Killing over 60 million people since he viewed them as inferior and should not be allowed to reproduce lest their least evolved genes get swept back up in the gene pool. Mao of China was an evolutionist, Pol Pot was an evolutionist. The Japanese leaders in WWII were evolutionists. See, ole Charlie Darwin was warned that this type of thing would happen....I guess he never listened.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 What has any of this to do with disproving the theory? You keep conveniently forgetting Hitler was a christian. Should we bring up the Crusades? The Inquisition(where the Church handed out quotas for finding heretics) so they could take their land? None of this has anything to do with disproving the theory....which you cannot do.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Do you seriously bother to read any of my posts? If Hitler was a Christian, his actions surely show he was not. Not to mention, again, what Christian says this? “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” Your denial is truly astounding. I fail to see any connection with the Crusades and evolution, or the Inquisition and evolution. If you do, I'd love to hear you defend that position since you cannot defend evolution.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man. That is why Hitler tried to eliminate the Jews, as he viewed them as inferior savages that were a threat to the master race that evolution's ultimate goal is.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Answer my questions. Have you even read any of these 250,000 papers on evolution you keep bringing up? If you have, surely some of them must have answers to my questions on them. If they don't, well, then evolution is a pretty hollow incoherent theory that cannot answer simple questions about it. Oh yes, and you should be proud too since the Norway shooter was also a self admitted "Darwinist."
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 None of this has anything to do with the theory.
Intelligent Design
"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creation vs evolution to the existence of God vs the non-existence of God." Atty. Philip Johnson, the father of "Intelligent Design", admitting that he lies for his God in "Reclaiming America for Christ.Post the paper that disproves the theory....or are you going to just post more BS.
wizard970 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 Answer my questions.
tate22000 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Since you just said you've got plenty of time, then use it to answer my questions. All of them. Fully. Then I'll have plenty more for you.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Which is why I won't answer them. You have nothing..at all. Produce the paper, but you and I know you can't. Mostly because you believe things like in this video. A talk on fossils by a man that has no education in the field. Actually you have presented no valid proof at all, just a bunch of hearsay by people with no education in the field. And by the questions you are asking I see you still have not read the theory.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Answer the questions. You cannot even defend your theory. You keep repeating this paper nonsense. Don't those papers answer them or address them? What do they say? You dance around questions more than any other evolutionist I've ever come across. Dodge and weave and ignoring them will not make you look any less foolish. You have no valid answers to them and apparently no one else does either. If you did, you'd have answered them right away.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus? Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did life develop from non-life? Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from? How did they evolve?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot?
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 The theory of evolution has nothing to do with where the elements came from. Its also not about life coming from non life. You would know that if you bothered to read it and stop spewing this ridiculous nonsense. Where is the paper. You know so much more than all these scientists, prove it.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Lets go back to those "science books" you laud. Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Can you give just one coercive proof, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life? Explain how the theory of evolution is scientific. Where is it observable? How has it been tested? When/where/how has it been repeated?
tate22000 7 months ago
It has been tested and proven for 150 years. Both in the wild and in laboratories. Where is the proof you said you had to disprove it? Basically just hot air like all the rest. That's why you can't win in court, no verifiable, tested, documented, peer reviewed proof. Just ramblings like the guy in this video. What a sorry state.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Me thinks you have mutated and evolved selective memory loss. You have not read one thing that I have posted. That must be why you haven't come close to answering my questions. Once again, if evolution is so well proven, you should be able to answer them with flying colors. Is there not one of those 250,00 + papers that you laud on evolution that address any of them? Or are they just as full of fairy tales as the theory itself is?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 You dont answer my questions, you dont address any points that I make, you dont make any points yourself that aren't laughed at. You clearly have no idea how to debate or even discuss anything. You call names like you are on the playground, you repeat 250,000 papers nonsense and 150 years of frauds, hoaxes and lies as if you believe if you repeat that enough itll make it true. That is pathetic. Heres another question you'll ignore: Name one valid point you have made in this debate.
tate22000 7 months ago
You said you could disprove the theory. Well, go ahead and do it. I am not going to get into a bit by bit discussion with you. Show me the proof!!! Oh that's right you can't, because it has never been disproved. You are simply trying to keep a 2,000 year old fairy tale going. Rather than actually read the theory, or get some answers, you take the lazy way out...god did it. How pitiful.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 I already did disprove the theory. See, this is how its supposed to work. A theory is proposed, if there is no evidence to prove it, it is abandoned. You have presented no valid evidence yet you continue to claim its true and try to shift the burden of proof. You dont answer my questions nor do you attempt in the least bit to refute any of my posts. You can't answer questions about it. THAT is lazy. THAT is pitiful.
tate22000 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 So if I found 250,000 papers that claim say ice is made out of paper......that would make it true? According to your logic it would.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 If they were peer reviewed, then yes. But that is a silly proposition, and I hope you realize that. But unfortunately you probably do not. But I am still patiently waiting for the proof that is going to rock the scientific world. Go for it.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 This is not a good argument because the traits they cite are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional, not in any true process of transition from one type of structure into another. What about the duck-billed platypus? It has traits belonging to both birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn't argue that it's a transitional link between birds and mammals because of that!
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 The fossils show that all species came into existence as complete, fully-formed, fully functional. That can only happen by creation.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Comparative genetic and biological similarities between species can much more logically be explained by a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Some evolutionists use similarities of traits between species as an argument for transitional forms.
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Your last 'proof' for evolution involved imagining how it happened. Now if that isn't scientific dog gone it, I don't know what is!
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 2 - ONLY HARM—The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not kill outright are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 This gradual buildup of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool......
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 ....The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 3 - USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out. The result is a weeding-out process. Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates mutations by killing off the organism bearing them!
tate22000 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
PHD in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice University).
This school is not accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees.
In other words, he has no Doctorate. He has no training in the Paleontology or Biological or Geological fields.
wizard970 7 months ago
Here is a list of trials creationism has lost
Creationist Trials
McLean vs Arkansas-1982
Louisiana vs Edwards-1987
Peloza vs Capistrano-1994
Lavake vs L.S.D. #656-2000
Kitsmiller vs Dover-2005-The School board had to pay
$1,000,011 because they lost the case.
It would seem that you are the one without any facts in this case, just religious mumbo jumbo.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 How many posts have you made on this video? And not in ONE of them have you addressed ANY of my points, answered ANY of my questions, or given ANY valid evidence(s) for the theory of evolution. You reply as if my points and questions aren't even there! Get over it. Evolution has NO evidence. Again, if it DID have evidence, you should have been able to prove your case by now. Or does there have to be more time for more fake evidence to be thought up?
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 The next Piltdown man maybe? or new fake drawings of embryos? fairy tale feathered dinosaurs? Or how in ANY way evolution is scientific or what the theory of evolution has added to science?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Those are trials that were lost because people think evolution is valid because of all the fake, fraud, and dishonesty that evolution is made up of. That "Nebraska man" fraud for example which was nothing more than a tooth (a tooth!) from a wild pig was used as "evidence" to prove evolution in the Dover trial for crying out loud!
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Creation has not deliberately put forth frauds, fakes, and lies to try to "prove" its validness. Evolution has. That alone should show you that its a the biggest hoax in history. And whats more, all those frauds and lies are still being used to teach evolution today! Why? If evolution is so well proven, why use "evidences" that have been debunked for decades and in some cases over a century now? Shouldn't they use real evidence? Oh yeah, thats right, there IS none.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Actually massive amounts of evidence were used in the six week Dover trial. Stop getting your information from religious sites, they are lying to you. If there is so much evidence for creationism, why does it keep loosing? I see this is a wast on your simple mind. Look the trials up on non religious sites to get the truth. I find the most truth is on sites where people are not trying to "sell" you anything, just report the facts.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 You are certainly in no position to claim that creation has no evidence when you again CANNOT ANSWER ANY OF MY QUESTIONS. LOL For crying out loud, every one of my questions has been a variation of "where is there evidence for evolution?" and when you name one you claim does, I refute it with logic and truth and you have no response. All you have is a bunch of evolution talking points that have been drummed into your head from tax supported church of evolution.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000
There is no church of evolution. I will not give you a coarse on it. Look it up. You are the one who has had fraudulent things drummed into your head. There was a reason for the million dollar plus cost of the court case, don't you get it. You are doing nothing but spewing out church bs. Since you refuse to educate yourself, I will not do it for you. Look into other than religious sites, find real scientists, not the phony ones like the guy in this video.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Alright, maybe you'll answer this question then-Why do you believe in evolution?
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 It's not just one court, its at least four different ones. Evolution is the most verified theory in science. Again you are using outdated info. Coke at one time did contain cocaine. I believe in it because it is a scientifically verifiable theory. In the space of 5,000 years humans have changed a wolf into a dog, and many different breeds of dogs. Imagine what could happen given millions of years.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 This response is a perfect example of how you are unaware of reality. Dogs and wolves are the same KIND of animal. That is NOT macro evolution. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes are the same KIND of animal. They can interbreed. Evolution teaches (in those 'science books' you claim I should read) that all the dogs in the world came from a rock!
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 And as far as what could happen in millions of years, you hit the nail right on the head: you have to IMAGINE it because it doesn't happen in reality. First you claim that evolution is the most verified theory in science, then claim you have to imagine it happening (just like the 'science books' tell you to.) That alone shows evolution is NOT science. You have to IMAGINE it happening because it is not testable, repeatable, verifiable science. Imagine. Good grief.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 And your sentence about IMAGINING what could happen given a few million years also shows that if you can't see it, just add time......then some more time. Evolution from one KIND of animal to another KIND is impossible even if you give it trillions of years. There is no mechanism that ADDS information to a DNA code. Mutations cannot do it. As I asked a while back, where is there on humans where we are evolving something new? You didn't answer that. We aren't evolving.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Did you watch the video? All the evidence you say is nullified, is done by people like the one in this video, Don Patton, who has no education in this field. Show me one piece of evidence that evolution is not true. Verifiable, testable, published in identification journals and subject to peer review. You can't. All you have are these old arguments that have been settled years ago.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 If the designer was so good, why ar 99% of all species that ever lived on earth extinct? Design flaws?
wizard970 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 " If the designer was so good, why ar 99% of all species that ever lived on earth extinct? Design flaws?" You do realize you sent this question to yourself right?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 You completely showed your hand in your last post. You have to IMAGINE it happening because it doesn't happen in reality. Now that you have been caught in that fact of your own admission, you are not attempting to shift the burden of proof. You want me to prove evolution is not true, (which I already have since you cant answer simple questions about it). The burden of proof is on you. I didn't pick the dumb theory to begin with. 150 years later, there is no proof, get another theory.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 The theory of evolution has no proof, violates several scientific laws, has no mechanism to add information to an organism's DNA (which would need to happen to change one organism into another kind and not your silly dog/wolf example), has been riddled with fakes, frauds, lies, and hoaxes over 150 years, and is nothing more than a fairy tale dressed up as science. Why would anyone defend such a ridiculous theory?
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Please watch "Holy Hallucinations 4" by the Living Dinosaur.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 How about answer my questions. Surely that one is simple enough for even you to answer. Why do you believe in evolution?
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 You do remember that you said the trial was just a Hollywood hoax. Tel that to the Dover School board that paid the fine....The case of the drawings is almost 50 years old. The mistake was found in the first edition, (by other scientists)and every one since has been correct. You refute things with lies that have been drummed into your head by religion. If there is so much evidence for creation, why won't it stand up in court?
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 So the base for your logic in mindlessly talking about the Dover Trial is that since a court "rules" one way, that means its true? OJ was found not guilty, ditto for Casey Anthony, courts have also ruled that Coco Cola should be banned because is contained cocaine, banned food preservatives that had nothing wrong with them because they thought they did......want me to keep going with all the ways courts have been wrong? Courts are not infallable as you seem to claim.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 And heres some more questions you can't answer: How did life begin on Earth? What was the first organism? How did it reproduce? What did it eat? How did the eye evolve? How did the nose, mouth, legs, back, arms, legs, feet, heart, stomach, intestines, muscles, bones nails, veins, shoulders ete evolve? How did DNA evolve? where did it come from? How about how do you evolve from a plant to an animal (according to those 'science books' you advocate, it happened) so how did it?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did the woodpecker evolve? (especially his head) Please show me any transitional fossils from regular birds to the wood pecker to show how it happened. How about how the elephant evolved it's nose among other things? Please show me any transitional fossils that show how it happened. The giraffe's long neck? Wheres the transitional fossils there? You claimed earlier the fossil record proves evolution, so lets see it. And I've got plenty more when your done showing me them.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 You still have not disproved the theory. I asked for a simple proof, which you cannot supply. This is for you
He that cannot reason is a fool.
He that will not reason is a bigot.
He that dare not reason is a slave
We have been all over this. You insist on believing things that people with no education in the field tell you, You are in fact a slave to your religion. Again I ask for one proof that evolution is not true. Only one, peer reviewed, published proof. Give it your best shot
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 The burden of proof is on YOU. I have asked you plenty of questions giving you a great opportunity to prove evolution by answering them. You either ignore or refuse to answer them. You look cannot just claim that evolution is true then not answer any questions about it. So lets hear it! Knock yourself out.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 You might want to sit down...There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution. There is not one on creationism. There are 10 plus court cases where evolution theory has prevailed. There is not one for creationism. You ask nothing but already disproved questions. Educate yourself, read some of these papers. Writing a long answer and asking already disproved questions proves nothing.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 lol Disproved questions? I'd settle for ANSWERED questions. Your posts are starting to not even make sense. You don't disprove questions, you answer questions. Well, that is, everyone except you. You seem to have a hard time doing that. If they have already been answered, lets here it.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 You are the one saying the theory is wrong. Well prove it. I am sure some of those 250,000 paper writing scientists would love to hear your answer. It seems you do not know what science is. Show some form of proof that the theory is wrong.
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 Again, answer my questions. Quit stalling. You imply because 250,000 people believe something that makes it true? That is a very silly argument to make. Science is the same no matter what. It doesn't depend on consensuses, no matter how big or small. You by not answering my questions are proving evolution false. Stall some more, my questions aren't going away.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 First, I already did. You claimed the fossil record proves evolution. I dismantled that with common sense. Secondly, ok, be careful what you wish for.....
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Modern evolutionary theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful changes in all living creatures. And this has been responsible for all the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants and animals.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life form might greatly improve.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations that have provided us with the millions of beneficial features in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random, mutational changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life forms will emerge.Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt us to our environmental needs.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 5 - DANGEROUS ACCIDENTS—How often do accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident you have will make you feel better than you did before? Because of their random nature and negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Actually, a significant part of the grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a chance accident to the genes or chromosomes.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How did the woodpecker evolve? (especially his head) Please show me any transitional fossils from regular birds to the wood pecker to show how it happened. How about how the elephant evolved it's nose among other things? Please show me any transitional fossils that show how it happened. The giraffe's long neck? Wheres the transitional fossils there? You claimed earlier the fossil record proves evolution, so lets see it. And I've got plenty more when your done showing me them.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 *Carl Sagan, a leading scientist and science fiction writer, says that we have no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it is too bumpy! "We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.
Sagan’s idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground is about as humorous as lava fields that are generally smooth and level.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Who is that confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might wonderfully improve?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 "We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body......
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 ..... A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
tate22000 7 months ago
@tate22000 Add this to your list In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".
wizard970 7 months ago
@wizard970 I really don't think you understand what Science is. Science is science regardless of what some judge happens to think or say. Science is the same whether there is a supposed "consensus" on something or not. Evolution is not testable (because it doesn't happen), is not demonstrable (because it doesn't happen), and certainly is not repeatable (because it doesn't happen.)
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Any actual legit answers to any of those questions I've asked? Again if evolution is so well proven, you should have really no problem answering them. So lets hear it. Don't be shy. I want to hear the evolutionary explanation to every single one of them. Or do you have to IMAGINE what the answers will be first?
tate22000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wizard970 How did life begin on Earth? What was the first organism? How did it reproduce? What did it eat? How did the eye evolve? How did the nose, mouth, legs, back, arms, legs, feet, heart, stomach, intestines, muscles, bones nails, veins, shoulders ete evolve? How did DNA evolve? where did it come from? How about how do you evolve from a plant to an animal (according to those 'science books' you advocate, it happened) so how did it?
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 4 - MUTAGENS—It is a well-known fact that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and plants. It is time that the evolutionists, who praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 How can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and actions of life? If scientists really believed in mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more, not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life! But they well-know that mutations are extremely dangerous.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce species evolution: 1 - NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bullock concludes:
"Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization."—*Helen Bullock, "Crusade to Unravel Life’s Mystery," The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13.
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 6 - INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered. Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible!
tate22000 7 months ago
@wizard970 The your dog/wolf example, you did exactly what evolutionists do all the time: give an example of micro evolution and claim it is proof of macro evolution. It doesn't matter if you give it all the time that has ever existed, with no mechanism to add DNA information, evolution from one kind of animal into another kind cannot happen.
tate22000 7 months ago