Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,477 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,755,794
Pageviews Today: 2,323,590Threads Today: 519Posts Today: 10,548
05:13 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?

 
Galfeslaf
The King of Greenland

User ID: 39292843
United States
04/26/2014 09:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Again, another evolutionist trying to pass off microevolution as proof of macroevolution.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Given time PLUS distance critters that are only species level different become genus level different, then family level different, and so forth. Look up "ring species" to see how different species can arise.

Some species appear quickly and then have long ranges like ammonites where certain species can be documented for a few million years and then they vanish from the record.

Some species have very short ranges like foramnifera and can be used in high resolution chrono-stratigraphy to correlate limestone and shales regionally or even globally.

**

Transitional species quickly get supplanted by their newer more adapted descendants which is why there are fewer of them in the fossil record. It's MUCH harder to find something that may have existed a few hundred years than 100 thousand years in any geological layer.

Actually everything is in transition, the only difference is speed of change caused by outside factors.

Only so many variations of the same critter will physically occupy a certain niche and eventually older forms can get pushed out. You simply won't find like 100 species of clams or oysters in the same spot.

Humans used to have much larger heads which is why our modern smaller heads are having problems with too many teeth and why we all need our wisdom teeth pulled.

Me and many friends have actually discovered new species of this and that critter that lived such a short time span we are the ONLY ones that have found them.

If there was no "macro evolution" there should be NO fish-amphibian transition and yet they have been found, right in the geologic layer of the expected time range. Predictability proves theory.
 Quoting: Engonoceras


So, when will the athiest-led MSM tell the world about all of this proof you have for macroevolution? When are you scheduled to receive your award in Stockholm?

As far as I know, no one has done what you claim to have done. Congratulations. We must all be very blessed to have you here.

So, in your estimation, does all of this evidence lead you to believe there is no God? That life on earth was a random accident? That logic, systems, time, space and matter were born out of nothing? That nothing blew up and made everything? Just curious.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57255703
United States
04/26/2014 09:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
like duh
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 55920081


Ditto
Engonoceras

User ID: 40574759
United States
04/26/2014 10:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
(1-2) So, when will the athiest-led MSM tell the world about all of this proof you have for macroevolution? (3)When are you scheduled to receive your award in Stockholm?

As far as I know, no one has done what you claim to have done. Congratulations. (4)We must all be very blessed to have you here.

(5)So, in your estimation, does all of this evidence lead you to believe there is no God? (6)That life on earth was a random accident? (7)That logic, systems, time, space and matter were born out of nothing? That nothing blew up and made everything? Just curious.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf



Calm down!

1. Mainstream media is worthless trying to report science.

2. I haven't proved anything, just speaking what little I've learned.

3. Stockholm would be fun but that's for real academics with degrees and stuff. I'm just a fossil collector in Texas. Actually I did get a lifetime membership to the Dallas Paleo Society for my new pterosaur discovery, a newspaper writeup, and a TV story.

4. You are blessed to have someone that can actually discuss things beyond canned responses from a website. I'm not an expert but I actually study fossils a little and use the geologic column in my hunting.

5. Belief in Evolution/Old Earth has absolutely no bearing on belief in God in my opinion. I'm more agnostic.

OK, let's get to the real center of all these arguments I see here. Some Christians have this irrational fear that if people accept Evolution it automatically means they will reject God. This is simply not true. The thing that pushes people away from God are people that irrationally cling to a fairy tale of 6 day Creation story despite the mountain of physical and testable evidence for a different idea of why all the different animals are here.

6. That's not what Evolution tries to explain. The mechanics of how life actually started from scant proteins molecules is still beyond science. I personally have no problem with the concept of a higher intelligence starting the ball rolling.

7. That's a question for atomic and astro physicists.

Last Edited by Engonoceras on 04/26/2014 10:12 PM
Galfeslaf
The King of Greenland

User ID: 39292843
United States
04/26/2014 10:43 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
(1-2) So, when will the athiest-led MSM tell the world about all of this proof you have for macroevolution? (3)When are you scheduled to receive your award in Stockholm?

As far as I know, no one has done what you claim to have done. Congratulations. (4)We must all be very blessed to have you here.

(5)So, in your estimation, does all of this evidence lead you to believe there is no God? (6)That life on earth was a random accident? (7)That logic, systems, time, space and matter were born out of nothing? That nothing blew up and made everything? Just curious.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf



Calm down!

1. Mainstream media is worthless trying to report science.

2. I haven't proved anything, just speaking what little I've learned.

3. Stockholm would be fun but that's for real academics with degrees and stuff. I'm just a fossil collector in Texas. Actually I did get a lifetime membership to the Dallas Paleo Society for my new pterosaur discovery, a newspaper writeup, and a TV story.

4. You are blessed to have someone that can actually discuss things beyond canned responses from a website. I'm not an expert but I actually study fossils a little and use the geologic column in my hunting.

5. Belief in Evolution/Old Earth has absolutely no bearing on belief in God in my opinion. I'm more agnostic.

OK, let's get to the real center of all these arguments I see here. Some Christians have this irrational fear that if people accept Evolution it automatically means they will reject God. This is simply not true. The thing that pushes people away from God are people that irrationally cling to a fairy tale of 6 day Creation story despite the mountain of physical and testable evidence for a different idea of why all the different animals are here.

6. That's not what Evolution tries to explain. The mechanics of how life actually started from scant proteins molecules is still beyond science. I personally have no problem with the concept of a higher intelligence starting the ball rolling.

7. That's a question for atomic and astro physicists.
 Quoting: Engonoceras


Believe it or not, it's been a true pleasure to talk to you about this. I really appreciate your responses, even though we don't see eye to eye on multiple things.

You are right that most Christians perceive the evolution argument as an assault on their faiths. For many literalists, it is an assault of sorts. I am not a literalist, however, and would still believe the Bible if there ever was conclusive proof that macroevolution exists. I believe it has no impact on the belief of intelligent design or the veracity of the Bible.

Most disputes and debates in the world are the result of poor communication or differences in assumptions and terminology. So, I hope that both you and I will continue to examine the opposing arguments and try to ferret out our failures in understanding the other side. I don't mean to say that you and I should continue endlessly on this with each other, but that we should continue to try to refine our arguments to make them more clear for the opposing side in general. I know I confuse people quite a bit, on accident, simply by the way I communicate - or by assuming the other side already views some subtopic the same way I do and getting confused as to why they are having problems coming to the same conclusion I did on the main topic.

Anyhow, thanks again for your responses. I hope I didn't bug you too much. I get like that sometimes when I assume I know the "type" of person I'm talking to, but I really don't know. Reliance on fuzzy math is one of the greatest flaws of the human mind. Usually works though. I'm sorry it didn't work in this case and instead resulted in another demonstration of my own imperfection.

Sorry.
Also, can I ask how old you are? Just interested...
Engonoceras

User ID: 40574759
United States
04/26/2014 11:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
42 years.
Galfeslaf
The King of Greenland

User ID: 39292843
United States
04/26/2014 11:01 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
42 years.
 Quoting: Engonoceras


Cool. Got me beat by 11.
Nachos

User ID: 57273510
Australia
04/27/2014 12:45 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
like duh
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 55920081


Why are 99% scientists believe in evolution then?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57281494


They don't believe in evolution in all its forms. They can prove that microevolution exists, but not macroevolution. However, because they are stupid humans, they believe that through sophistic arguments coupled with popularity, they can create "truth" where there is none and use it as an excuse for their adoption of such false beliefs in order to fool God into believing they were genuinely led to believe falsities, as if God cannot read their hearts and know their most inner thoughts.

Their adoption of the belief of macroevolution is nothing more than an excuse to not admit they believe they are held accountable by a higher power - especially if the higher power has absolute truth on its side, as this would mean their imagined moral freedom to "do as thou wilt" is folly.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Endogenous Retroviruses PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that macroevolution happened. If you reject endogenous retroviruses as evidence, then you are going with 1 in 3 billion odds 200,000 times in EACH HUMAN AND CHIMP that has ever existed. These magical virus infections from the past must be haunting us and infecting every baby as they are born, in the same location with identical ancient mutations.

Last Edited by Nachos on 04/27/2014 12:45 AM
Debunking "Evolution Vs God"
[link to www.youtube.com]
Nachos

User ID: 57273510
Australia
04/27/2014 01:03 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
One last thing guys,one of member on GLP suggest me to watch lecture of now dead Lloyd Pye.
Pye talked about human origins and how aliens created humans 300-400 thousand years ago.
Here is video link:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

I would really like to hear your opinion about this,since many people think he's right.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57281494


judging by the first few minutes, he seems to assume all the skulls and fossils are direct human ancestors... evolution is a branch or tree, not a chain. this image is totally wrong:

[link to i.telegraph.co.uk]

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]



i haven't watched the whole lloyd pye video, but judging by these mistakes (unless i am mistaken in that he was not assuming they were all direct ancestors) then i would not give much hope for the rest of the video. i will watch it later in full

Last Edited by Nachos on 04/27/2014 01:06 AM
Debunking "Evolution Vs God"
[link to www.youtube.com]
Holy Cow
User ID: 57390009
United States
04/27/2014 01:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Endogenous Retroviruses PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that macroevolution happened. If you reject endogenous retroviruses as evidence, then you are going with 1 in 3 billion odds 200,000 times in EACH HUMAN AND CHIMP that has ever existed. These magical virus infections from the past must be haunting us and infecting every baby as they are born, in the same location with identical ancient mutations.
 Quoting: Nachos


Is it still a virus?

Does science claim evolution is fact?

Guess you were just wrong then.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57390009
United States
04/27/2014 01:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Darwin was Illuminati. They created Marxism and hate Christianity. They invented pagan 'science' - their false religion - as they always have.

God's unlikely Latin lovers
BY: YASMIN HASKELL
The Australian | September 27, 2006

ONE of the most delicious paradoxes in the history of education is the fact that the Society of Jesus, a Catholic Reformation order founded by Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century, was the greatest single publicity machine for the literature of pagan antiquity from the late Renaissance until the French Revolution.

The ethos of the Society of Jesus was an apostolic one: its members were called less to contemplate than to preach, to harvest souls, to exert influence in the world. The order attracted active types - missionaries, musicians, mathematicians, artists, architects, scientists and poets -- and all Jesuits were required to do a stint of teaching in the society's free humanist schools.

The Jesuits are rightly acclaimed as the educators of early modern Catholic Europe. Among their brilliant alumni were Rene Descartes and Voltaire. While their curriculum and pedagogical methods were based on Renaissance models, the Society of Jesus translated traditional elements into a spectacularly successful formula of their own, forging an international educational empire that stretched from Rome to Russia, Mexico to Macau.
[link to www.theaustralian.com.au]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to freemasonry.bcy.ca]

[link to www.creationism.org]

[link to youtu.be]
Galfeslaf
The King of Greenland

User ID: 39292843
United States
04/27/2014 01:36 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
like duh
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 55920081


Why are 99% scientists believe in evolution then?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57281494


They don't believe in evolution in all its forms. They can prove that microevolution exists, but not macroevolution. However, because they are stupid humans, they believe that through sophistic arguments coupled with popularity, they can create "truth" where there is none and use it as an excuse for their adoption of such false beliefs in order to fool God into believing they were genuinely led to believe falsities, as if God cannot read their hearts and know their most inner thoughts.

Their adoption of the belief of macroevolution is nothing more than an excuse to not admit they believe they are held accountable by a higher power - especially if the higher power has absolute truth on its side, as this would mean their imagined moral freedom to "do as thou wilt" is folly.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Endogenous Retroviruses PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that macroevolution happened. If you reject endogenous retroviruses as evidence, then you are going with 1 in 3 billion odds 200,000 times in EACH HUMAN AND CHIMP that has ever existed. These magical virus infections from the past must be haunting us and infecting every baby as they are born, in the same location with identical ancient mutations.
 Quoting: Nachos


Ok. For now, I'll assume that what you're saying proves macroevolution exists. Endogenous Retroviruses aren't a normal topic of conversation around the dinner table, nor anything I've ever heard of as being evidence for macroevolution in academia - even though I probably should have heard about them with my math degree emphasis being biomath (which is mostly math...but still...). You'll have to forgive me, but I thought that the Christian apologists (including myself) had already settled the matter, due to lack of evidence in the fossil record and various other points showing the impossibility of macroevolution. So, I haven't felt the need to keep up with new macroevolutionist arguments. You may be right. I just don't know. Could you please link me up to something that will do the trick in convincing me, if you could/would?

When was this evidence via endogenous retroviruses discovered? Before it's discovery did many people believe microevolution over time would result in macroevolution? If so, why would they believe this, in your estimation (without the solid evidence you say exists)? I still stick by my belief that most people that profess evolution aren't taking a very well-thought-out stance intellectually, but are mainly those that blindly believe the words of scientists or are those that "believe" for the more emotional, willful reasons I stated in the previous post. I expect you disagree with me on this as well, but that's what I see...

Just wondering if you might have similar thoughts on the pre-proof macroevolutionist crowd.

Last Edited by ForunMoberator on 04/27/2014 01:40 AM
Nachos

User ID: 57273510
Australia
04/27/2014 04:57 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
...


Why are 99% scientists believe in evolution then?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57281494


They don't believe in evolution in all its forms. They can prove that microevolution exists, but not macroevolution. However, because they are stupid humans, they believe that through sophistic arguments coupled with popularity, they can create "truth" where there is none and use it as an excuse for their adoption of such false beliefs in order to fool God into believing they were genuinely led to believe falsities, as if God cannot read their hearts and know their most inner thoughts.

Their adoption of the belief of macroevolution is nothing more than an excuse to not admit they believe they are held accountable by a higher power - especially if the higher power has absolute truth on its side, as this would mean their imagined moral freedom to "do as thou wilt" is folly.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Endogenous Retroviruses PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that macroevolution happened. If you reject endogenous retroviruses as evidence, then you are going with 1 in 3 billion odds 200,000 times in EACH HUMAN AND CHIMP that has ever existed. These magical virus infections from the past must be haunting us and infecting every baby as they are born, in the same location with identical ancient mutations.
 Quoting: Nachos


Ok. For now, I'll assume that what you're saying proves macroevolution exists. Endogenous Retroviruses aren't a normal topic of conversation around the dinner table, nor anything I've ever heard of as being evidence for macroevolution in academia - even though I probably should have heard about them with my math degree emphasis being biomath (which is mostly math...but still...). You'll have to forgive me, but I thought that the Christian apologists (including myself) had already settled the matter, due to lack of evidence in the fossil record and various other points showing the impossibility of macroevolution. So, I haven't felt the need to keep up with new macroevolutionist arguments. You may be right. I just don't know. Could you please link me up to something that will do the trick in convincing me, if you could/would?

When was this evidence via endogenous retroviruses discovered? Before it's discovery did many people believe microevolution over time would result in macroevolution? If so, why would they believe this, in your estimation (without the solid evidence you say exists)? I still stick by my belief that most people that profess evolution aren't taking a very well-thought-out stance intellectually, but are mainly those that blindly believe the words of scientists or are those that "believe" for the more emotional, willful reasons I stated in the previous post. I expect you disagree with me on this as well, but that's what I see...

Just wondering if you might have similar thoughts on the pre-proof macroevolutionist crowd.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]


this video explains how it works and is evidence for evolution. the details are a bit outdated, it says there are only 30,000 ERVs but there are actually around 200,000 ERV remnants(see: [link to www.plosone.org]



they have actually known about this stuff since the early 2000s. so its old, but not even many "evolutionists" know about this. it provides evidence for common descent.


8% of the human genome are endogenous retroviruses (see: [link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


These are the ERVs that are only in humans and ERVs only in chimps (because they appeared after the split with the common ancestor)

[link to www.nature.com]
(see: [link to www.nature.com]

meaning we share every single other ERV with chimps.


this is how they are able to build phylogenies by looking at the shared mutations in the ERVs across multiple primate species

[link to www.pnas.org]
( [link to www.pnas.org]

---------------------------------------------------------

there are no differences in macroevolution and microevolution, they are the same thing. same process.

if you think the fossil record contains no evidence of evolution, most likely you don't have a very good understanding of evolution or the definition of transitional fossils.

Last Edited by Nachos on 04/27/2014 05:19 AM
Debunking "Evolution Vs God"
[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57293235
United States
04/27/2014 10:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Again, another evolutionist trying to pass off microevolution as proof of macroevolution.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Given time PLUS distance critters that are only species level different become genus level different, then family level different, and so forth. Look up "ring species" to see how different species can arise.

Some species appear quickly and then have long ranges like ammonites where certain species can be documented for a few million years and then they vanish from the record.

Some species have very short ranges like foramnifera and can be used in high resolution chrono-stratigraphy to correlate limestone and shales regionally or even globally.

**

Transitional species quickly get supplanted by their newer more adapted descendants which is why there are fewer of them in the fossil record. It's MUCH harder to find something that may have existed a few hundred years than 100 thousand years in any geological layer.

Actually everything is in transition, the only difference is speed of change caused by outside factors.

Only so many variations of the same critter will physically occupy a certain niche and eventually older forms can get pushed out. You simply won't find like 100 species of clams or oysters in the same spot.

Humans used to have much larger heads which is why our modern smaller heads are having problems with too many teeth and why we all need our wisdom teeth pulled.

Me and many friends have actually discovered new species of this and that critter that lived such a short time span we are the ONLY ones that have found them.

If there was no "macro evolution" there should be NO fish-amphibian transition and yet they have been found, right in the geologic layer of the expected time range. Predictability proves theory.
 Quoting: Engonoceras
Perfect example of fostering hypothosis and speculation, as fact. FAIL. Science is based on observable and reproduceable evidence, not theory.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57293235
United States
04/27/2014 10:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
How long has life been on this planet, yet in all that time, there is no observable or reproduceable evidence for darwinian evolution? How much blind faith do you have to have???
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57293235
As I said, where are the thousands of years of supposed transitional fossils? There should be millions.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57293235


The transitional ones are always going to be a very small percent of the total amount of fossils and thus MUCH harder to find.

The question is inherently faulty because everything is technically a transitional form but sometimes the change was very fast and sometimes it stabilized for millions of years.

Oysters if arranged time wise by geologic layer will show transitions.

There's a nice chart documenting the evolution of Eohippus to modern horse over 40 million years.
 Quoting: Engonoceras
Yet we can find humans and dinosaurs from the same periods, but nothing transitional as yet? Quit making crap up and trying to foust it as facts.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57293235
United States
04/27/2014 10:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Again, another evolutionist trying to pass off microevolution as proof of macroevolution.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Given time PLUS distance critters that are only species level different become genus level different, then family level different, and so forth. Look up "ring species" to see how different species can arise.

Some species appear quickly and then have long ranges like ammonites where certain species can be documented for a few million years and then they vanish from the record.

Some species have very short ranges like foramnifera and can be used in high resolution chrono-stratigraphy to correlate limestone and shales regionally or even globally.

**

Transitional species quickly get supplanted by their newer more adapted descendants which is why there are fewer of them in the fossil record. It's MUCH harder to find something that may have existed a few hundred years than 100 thousand years in any geological layer.

Actually everything is in transition, the only difference is speed of change caused by outside factors.

Only so many variations of the same critter will physically occupy a certain niche and eventually older forms can get pushed out. You simply won't find like 100 species of clams or oysters in the same spot.

Humans used to have much larger heads which is why our modern smaller heads are having problems with too many teeth and why we all need our wisdom teeth pulled.

Me and many friends have actually discovered new species of this and that critter that lived such a short time span we are the ONLY ones that have found them.

If there was no "macro evolution" there should be NO fish-amphibian transition and yet they have been found, right in the geologic layer of the expected time range. Predictability proves theory.
 Quoting: Engonoceras


So, when will the athiest-led MSM tell the world about all of this proof you have for macroevolution? When are you scheduled to receive your award in Stockholm?

As far as I know, no one has done what you claim to have done. Congratulations. We must all be very blessed to have you here.


So, in your estimation, does all of this evidence lead you to believe there is no God? That life on earth was a random accident? That logic, systems, time, space and matter were born out of nothing? That nothing blew up and made everything? Just curious.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf
That's because all he does is lie and all he has are lies.
Nachos

User ID: 57273510
Australia
04/27/2014 11:19 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Again, another evolutionist trying to pass off microevolution as proof of macroevolution.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Given time PLUS distance critters that are only species level different become genus level different, then family level different, and so forth. Look up "ring species" to see how different species can arise.

Some species appear quickly and then have long ranges like ammonites where certain species can be documented for a few million years and then they vanish from the record.

Some species have very short ranges like foramnifera and can be used in high resolution chrono-stratigraphy to correlate limestone and shales regionally or even globally.

**

Transitional species quickly get supplanted by their newer more adapted descendants which is why there are fewer of them in the fossil record. It's MUCH harder to find something that may have existed a few hundred years than 100 thousand years in any geological layer.

Actually everything is in transition, the only difference is speed of change caused by outside factors.

Only so many variations of the same critter will physically occupy a certain niche and eventually older forms can get pushed out. You simply won't find like 100 species of clams or oysters in the same spot.

Humans used to have much larger heads which is why our modern smaller heads are having problems with too many teeth and why we all need our wisdom teeth pulled.

Me and many friends have actually discovered new species of this and that critter that lived such a short time span we are the ONLY ones that have found them.

If there was no "macro evolution" there should be NO fish-amphibian transition and yet they have been found, right in the geologic layer of the expected time range. Predictability proves theory.
 Quoting: Engonoceras
Perfect example of fostering hypothosis and speculation, as fact. FAIL. Science is based on observable and reproduceable evidence, not theory.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57293235


are you saying god designed the human body this way? your god fails if so
Debunking "Evolution Vs God"
[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57293235
United States
04/27/2014 11:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Again, another evolutionist trying to pass off microevolution as proof of macroevolution.
 Quoting: Galfeslaf


Given time PLUS distance critters that are only species level different become genus level different, then family level different, and so forth. Look up "ring species" to see how different species can arise.

Some species appear quickly and then have long ranges like ammonites where certain species can be documented for a few million years and then they vanish from the record.

Some species have very short ranges like foramnifera and can be used in high resolution chrono-stratigraphy to correlate limestone and shales regionally or even globally.

**

Transitional species quickly get supplanted by their newer more adapted descendants which is why there are fewer of them in the fossil record. It's MUCH harder to find something that may have existed a few hundred years than 100 thousand years in any geological layer.

Actually everything is in transition, the only difference is speed of change caused by outside factors.

Only so many variations of the same critter will physically occupy a certain niche and eventually older forms can get pushed out. You simply won't find like 100 species of clams or oysters in the same spot.

Humans used to have much larger heads which is why our modern smaller heads are having problems with too many teeth and why we all need our wisdom teeth pulled.

Me and many friends have actually discovered new species of this and that critter that lived such a short time span we are the ONLY ones that have found them.

If there was no "macro evolution" there should be NO fish-amphibian transition and yet they have been found, right in the geologic layer of the expected time range. Predictability proves theory.
 Quoting: Engonoceras
Perfect example of fostering hypothosis and speculation, as fact. FAIL. Science is based on observable and reproduceable evidence, not theory.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57293235


are you saying god designed the human body this way? your god fails if so
 Quoting: Nachos
Hardly a failure to exist thousands of years.
Engonoceras

User ID: 40574759
United States
04/27/2014 12:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: If Darwin was illuminati,does that means evolution is fake?
Yet we can find humans and dinosaurs from the same periods, but nothing transitional as yet? Quit making crap up and trying to foust it as facts.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57293235


Where is the physical evidence of dinosaurs and humans coexisting? Where are dinosaur kill sites? Where are the human burial or camp sites with un-mineralised dinosaur bone?? Where are the hearths with charred dinosaur bones? Where are the geologic layers that contain dinosaur bones PLUS Human bones or artifacts?

A single hammer baked into a block of reconstituted local limestone is not evidence. EDIT: Actually it looks like if you pull the wood handle out from the bottom then the hammer head falls out meaning the block was carved to accept the hammer.

A cartoonish fake human footprint that's been ballpeen-hammered next to a real dinosaur track or in a random block of stone by fraudsters like Carl Baugh is not evidence. A real footprint looks nothing like those.

***

You can't even find mammals much larger than a mouse in any layer connected with dinosaurs and if you DID that would be a major discovery in the Paleo community.

If all animals existed at the same time then where are the identifiable un-reworked Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, or post-Cret layers that produce IN SITU trilobites??

Where are the identifiable Paleozoic layers that produce classic dinosaurs or modern mammals or birds???

If there was ONE site that could produce such anomalous results it would be descended on by literally EVERY geologist, paleontologist, and fossil hunter in the region and be major news.

Yet, there is NO such site anywhere in the World.

If the Flood model was accurate then such a site would be the norm would it not?

Last Edited by Engonoceras on 05/01/2014 09:44 PM

News