Oh Mr Darwin, how did 'evolution' NON-intelligently invent your nitric oxide blood pressure regulation technology?

But you don't require such proof for your religious beliefs.
Its all based on Faith which amounts to " I have no proof at all just trust me".

Why does Evolution require more proof than your religious proof?

Quote from your quote;
"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2] "

Denial of science provokes is it's own destiny, heretics need not apply


Last Edited by DGN on 01/02/2018 02:23 AM

This is exactly what you did last time I gave you the link. As I explained before, the excerpt you posted states that transitional fossils exist in the first sentence. What part of what you posted supports your position in anyway?

Grow up and explain yourself like a reasonable person. What is the relevance of the excerpt you posted from Wikipedia? What point are you trying to make?

I would have to go with magic if intelligence was forbidden. The mutation = precision form and function theory is like believing the more wrecks a car gets in the newer it becomes until it turns into an entirely more sophisticated model, like how the Corvair morphed into the Corvette, with new blueprints and opporting manual included. I seen it a hundred times at the junk yard. Where do people think new cars come from anyway?


Last Edited by DGN on 01/02/2018 07:15 PM

I would say intelligence is forbidden when you are beholden to a belief.

Not sure which way you mean that but I'm holding to believing this is the greatest scientific discovery of divine intelligence ever.


Last Edited by DGN on 01/02/2018 09:55 PM

I do love your videos.

I meant it from both sides.

I am not an apologist for darwinism. I’m not an opponent of the divine.

There's a big difference between sci-FY hoax, religion, and the wisdom from above, they don't mix.
"Who is wise and understanding among YOU? Let him show out of his fine conduct his works with a mildness that belongs to wisdom. 14 But if YOU have bitter jealousy and contentiousness in YOUR hearts, do not be bragging and lying against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is [the] earthly, animal, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and contentiousness are, there disorder and every vile thing are.
17 But the wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, not making partial distinctions, not hypocritical. 18 Moreover, the fruit of righteousness has its seed sown under peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.
4 From what source are there wars and from what source are there fights among YOU? Are they not from this source, namely, from YOUR cravings for sensual pleasure that carry on a conflict in YOUR members? 2 YOU desire, and yet YOU do not have. YOU go on murdering and coveting, and yet YOU are not able to obtain. YOU go on fighting and waging war. YOU do not have because of YOUR not asking. 3 YOU do ask, and yet YOU do not receive, because YOU are asking for a wrong purpose, that YOU may expend [it] upon YOUR cravings for sensual pleasure." Ja3:13

I’ve disparaged christianity on more than one occasion. I try really hard not to do that any more. Sometimes it’s hard.

Christianity of Christendom?
"And he journeyed through from city to city and from village to village, teaching and continuing on his journey to Jerusalem. 23 Now a certain man said to him: “Lord, are those who are being saved few?” He said to them: 24 “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell YOU, will seek to get in but will not be able, 25 when once the householder has got up and locked the door, and YOU start to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Sir, open to us.’ But in answer he will say to YOU, ‘I do not know where YOU are from.’ 26 Then YOU will start saying, ‘We ate and drank in front of you, and you taught in our broad ways.’ 27 But he will speak and say to YOU, ‘I do not know where YOU are from. Get away from me, all YOU workers of unrighteousness!’ 28 There is where [YOUR] weeping and the gnashing of [YOUR] teeth will be, when YOU see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves thrown outside." Lk13:22

I commend your contributions to the quest for knowledge, no matter which side you take. As a teacher said
"Men of Athens, I behold that in all things YOU seem to be more given to the fear of the deities than others are. 23 For instance, while passing along and carefully observing YOUR objects of veneration I also found an altar on which had been inscribed ‘To an Unknown God.’ Therefore what YOU are unknowingly giving godly devotion to, this I am publishing to YOU. 24 The God that made the world and all the things in it, being, as this One is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples, 25 neither is he attended to by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all [persons] life and breath and all things. 26 And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men], 27 for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28 For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among YOU have said, ‘For we are also his progeny.’ Ac17:22

How did god do it?
You dont know.so you will say abra cadabra we are made.

It is not sufficient to posit a nonsensical question about the makeup of DNA unless you have the answer yourself which you certainly do not.

To fall back on a belief system is hopelessly inadequate.

DGN you continuously ask the same questions which neither you or anyone else knows the answer.

This doesn't add credence to your belief system in god.


It shows your a little silly.

Biotechnology is a belief system? Can you really not recognize molecular intelligent design when presented?

Last Edited by DGN on 01/05/2018 01:10 AM

Links for ya dumbass, try learning something other than a myth.
[link to phys.org (secure)]

[link to phys.org (secure)]

[link to phys.org (secure)]

[link to phys.org (secure)]

[link to phys.org (secure)]

[link to phys.org (secure)]

[link to phys.org (secure)]

[link to phys.org (secure)]

Shits happening all around you, but you sit there reading a 2000 year old book of myths.
FFS wake the fuck up.

deny all that

The second link cracks me up. "Scientists duplicate RNA which replicates itself indefinitely." So you acknowledge such enormous data requires intelligent design, or deny it?


Last Edited by DGN on 01/05/2018 07:58 PM

Bless the evotards.

Yes due to secret enlightenment they require zero fossil evidence to validate their elusive theory.

The fossil record is one of the best sources of proof for evolution (would still argue the D.N.A and maybe embryos are better proof), but anyways, there are an extreme amount of transition fossils. This is going to be a wall of text but I'll list some transition fossils below.


Tiktaalik: Was a huge win for evolutionary paleontology, in the 1980s/early 1990s there were no examples of fossils showing a transitional organism between Sarcopterygii Fish and early Tetrapods. Looking at what we already knew about fish to tetrapod evolution up to that point, and a bit of simple maths, the scientists determined they could find a fossil of a transition organism in the rock layers between 390 and 350 million years ago, and what do you know? They found Tiktaalik. Of course now there are plenty of other Tiktaalik-like fossils that have been found (Panderichthys and Eusthenopteron are similar but even simpler.) Tiktaalik would share many traits with simpler Sarcopterygii Fish and early tetrapods like Ichthyostega. It's fins are even clearly in the process of spreading into fingers, which would end up being the precursors of modern feet that would appear at around the time of Icthyostega.

Archaeopteryx: Probably one of the more well known transition fossils, Archaeopteryx is a cousin to early birds. While it appears first and foremost as a bird, with feathers, wings, and all the things that make up a modern bird, it still had many dinosaurian raptor features, such as teeth, three-fingered claws which are seen in raptors, a long, bony tail, and extendable second claws. Unlike popular belief, it is not believed to be a direct ancestor of the modern group of birds, instead being more of a cousin (like chimps are to humans.) After Archaeopteryx, there are many more bird fossils that get increasingly similar to the modern bird, with the earliest ones in the Cretaceous Period having not yet evolved beaks, and towards the end of the period birds begin to have beaks, but still filled with teeth of course. At the tail end of the Cretaceous (a few million years before the KT Extinction Event), birds with beaks lacking teeth appear.

Odontochelys: This was a turtle ancestor, which at first glance well resembles a modern turtle, having the same body plan, fins, and a few other things in common with the modern turtle. However, their shells only covered their undersides, and they had teeth, not a beak.

I will continue this in a bit but I need to eat ^^

There is zero fossil trail of any creature ever turning into a different one, only pointless claims. Varieties within a species is no reason to pretend one turned into the other.

Last Edited by DGN on 01/06/2018 03:56 PM

It is true that the fossil record alone is not enough to prove evolution, but they certainly go hand in hand with other things. For example, reptile actually isn't a very science-friendly term since it groups together a lot of unrelated animals together. For example, alligators and birds. They do not look similar, so one would be fine thinking that alligators are closer to lizards than birds. However, first, the fossil record. The fossil record (and the bones of the animals themselves) show that both belong to a group of animals called archosaurs, a subclass of Diaspids, animals who's ancestry can be determined through their skull holes in particular, but other things such as hip structure and the like. Lizards, a type of diaspid, fall under lepidosaurs instead of archosaurs looking at their bone structure. Going into the fossil record, one can see that the ancestors of Archosaur and Lepidosaur split near the end of the Permian, as both groups appear at the end of the Permian/start of the Triassic, with both being firmly split by the mid Triassic. From here, inside Archosauria, one can see the ancestors of crocodiles (The Pseudosuchia) break away from the Avemetatarsalia (Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs, with birds being classified under Dinosaurs.) This is fossil record evidence of crocodiles and birds not only sharing a common ancestor but determining that the ancestor of crocodiles is closer to birds than to lizards. Of course, in science you don't want just one source for idea, so look at D.N.A. D.N.A in crocodiles and birds are far more similar between the two than with lizards and snakes, with crocodiles even having disabled genes for feathers, and birds having disabled genes for claws and beak-less mouths.

Archaeopterx is not the same species or genus or even family of birds as modern birds. Since it shares both the traits of raptors and birds, which one does it fall under according to you?

If need be I can go into Synapsid evolution since imo it's one of the best pieces of evolution out there (counting only the fossil record.)

No need here's scientific proof dinos devolved into birds, the nearly identical bone structure is a dead give away, no fossils needed

Theres no such thing as devolved in evolution, only evolved.

If someone asks how did dinos know how to turn into birds which must not have even existed yet, say "they just knew how to innovate",it's like this