Evolution is fake

I agree 100%!

What's your reasoning?

No, prove evolution wrong.

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

There is evolution but it is a result of intelligent design.

If you are going to design a life form logic would dictate that your creation can genetically adapt to its surroundings.

My 2 cents.

There is evolution but it is a result of intelligent design.

If you are going to design a life form logic would dictate that your creation can genetically adapt to its surroundings.

My 2 cents.
[/quote



Very scientific. No intelligent creator need be involved.

lol

Speak for yourself op, I've evolved...

I am not the one making the truth claim. Pony up the fucking proof.

Into what? Do you have four arms? Can you fly? Exactly how have you evolved?

Please, oh please, elaborate on this.

not one element of evolution has ever been observed

how can you deny that everything is evolving ... nothing remains the same, that change is CONSTANT and consistant ..


why can't you "creationists" accept the fact that BOTH processes are in play ... and stop trying to LIMIT our Creator

Ha.. Ill just post another thread on design as design shows absolutely there has to be a designer. Evolutionists cant stand such logic and math and straight lines and straight proofs, it destroys their non thinking religion.

Evolution IS a theory.

No Direct Proof exists except speculation.

Junk DNA is not junk - just not currently activated for that life form.

The DNA circuit board can be manipulated because it was designed, it did not evolve from mud being struck by lightning.

There’s no evolution but an upgrade...and I think we definitely need an upgrade... what about upgrading our digestive system!

theory noun
the·o·ry | \ˈthē-ə-rē,
ˈthir-ē\
plural theories
Definition of theory

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

3a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations

4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory

5 : abstract thought : speculation

6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

The following is an excert from "The Difference Between a Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, and Law In Science" by Patrick Allan

Fact: Observations about the world around us.

Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation.

Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature.


A theory is not a fact quit trying to make us sound incapable of understand the scientific method. That is always your types go-to

Last Edited by Nawt Meh Prezdunt on 11/01/2018 01:10 PM

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying,

Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.



Last Edited by Servant-of-the-LORD on 11/01/2018 02:08 PM

Endogenous Retroviruses have already proven evolution. When retroviruses insert into germ line cells they are passed onto the host's offspring and all the offspring's offspring forever will have the ERV insertion in the exact same position with the same mutations. To share an ERV in the same position with 1 other individual in the same species has a 1 in 3 billion chance yet all the apes share 90%+ of their ERV insertions, with chimps and humans sharing 99.9% of their ERV insertions with the same mutations in the same position. Retroviruses are still around doing the exact same thing. There are ERVs that only some humans share with each other.

They have not, ERV's do not prove evolution and have been ruled out as evidence by evolutionist.




Last Edited by ***Chad*** on 11/01/2018 11:14 PM

You're totally wrong! Our digestion system doesn't need to stop pooping, in fact taking a long poop is therapeutic to get away from crazy people...

You're just making things up now. What 'evolutionist' ruled out ERVs? Give me some evidence of this or I'll just assume you're talking out of your ass.

Answersingenesis is not a scientific source. It's a creationist propaganda website run by Ken Ham, who is a laughing stock. This moron spent millions of dollars trying to replicate Noah's Ark, unintentionally proving his own story wrong.

If you want an example of evolution, check out italian wall lizards: [link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]

A population of lizards were introduced to an island and underwent rapid anatomical changes within 30 years. They even developed new organs in their digestive system in response to local food sources.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/02/2018 08:03 AM

edit

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/02/2018 08:36 AM

What makes you think that evolution is not Creators work?

No creator need be involved. That's the part that is fake.

Religious God is not the Creator.

But they do have some form of a birth certificate, LTRs and mutations. LTRs form during reverse transcription and each ERV has 2 LTRs, the 2 LTRs in each ERV have to be identical at the time of insertion. Over time mutations change the LTRs so they are a little different to each other, so if 2 species share the same patterns you know they occurred in the common ancestor of the 2 species or even further back. If 3 or more species share the same patterns you know they occurred in the common ancestor of all 3 or more of the species. The more difference the LTRs have in each ERV, the older they are. Humans and chimps share 203,000 ERVs, that is 99.9%.

Retroviruses are still around doing the same thing. Koalas are experiencing the same thing for the last 100 years. Some humans share ERVs that other humans do not have. Neanderthals and Denisovans shared a few of their own ERVs that are not shared with humans.

Creationists do not have any serious explanations, their "explanations" are actually only for their believers, not to actually debunk the evidence. That is because their explanations have nothing to do with the actual evidence, but that is all they have, if they throw away these explanations of theirs they would have to accept evolution.

ERVs literally have the same genes as retroviruses, as they are retrovirus insertions. ERVs are associated with cancer and other diseases. The fact they have LTRs means they occurred from reverse transcription, which is what retroviruses use to make a DNA copy of their RNA genome.

Evolutionist.

The belief that all life changes and adapts over the period of billions of years.

Revolutionist.

The belief that rapid changes occur over very short periods of time altering all life in the process.


Truth.

It is both of the above. And a third element, your Planet is visited on a regular basis and you are "assisted" in your development.

This is called adaptation & the information for creating the "new" organ was already encoded in the lizards DNA long before ever having been dropped off at the island. Evolution is supposed to prove an increase in genetic information over time. Reality, however, proves there is a significant loss of genetic information, ie. mutations, external factors, specialization, etc.

Here's everything you need to acquire from that article you provided:

"The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."

Evolutionists ALWAYS do this. They'll start with a fact, ie, the explanation of what a fact is & how it's defined, then insert an improvable assumption, thereby influencing the reader to associate the two statements as one fact, when they ARE NOT.