Evolution: Full of Fiction

[median]

Response: Exactly. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Thus proving my point that it's false.

This statement shows that you are 100% ignorant of what evolution actually states. Go back to school and open a science book.

Response: The very same theory you claim is true is what I'm referring to, which is clearly false.

And what theory is that? Please demonstrate that you actually know and understand what the actual theory is, and what it states. Until then, you are full of shit and playing word games.

Response: To the contrary, it's dummies like you that makes islam look perfect, for only a brainwashed dummy would accept your belief. Debunked as usual.

"makes islam look 'perfect'"???? BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! WOW, that was hilarious. Yeah, perfectly ignorant and GULLIBLE.

Response: Now look at this dummy. You actually proved my examples, because you can't refute them. For a new born can create a repeating pattern once it grows and gains INTELLIGENCE. Stupid imbecile. So as long as there exist examples of unintelligence being unable to create a repeating pattern, then only a dumb retard would say that unintelligence can actually create a repeating pattern. It's a clear contradiction. You can't be capable and uncapable of doing the very same thing. What are you braindead?

Then you say define my terms. Imbecile, they are not "my" terms. They're simple basic English words. If you can't comprehend simple basic English, that's not my fault the education system left you behind. Dummy. Debunked as usual.

You seem to have a severe handicap, a reading comprehension disorder. Please seek help for this. Again, you didn't define what you are trying to talk about when you used words like "intelligence", "evolution", "common sense", etc. You just ASSUMED your own flawed definitions of those words. FAIL. Provide the definitions or you have nothing.

[Creed of Heresy]

Oh and also; so long, and thanks for all the fish!

[median]

Yep....NOTHING

[dj-hato]

Scientific evidence is based on tests and observation, yet no one has ever observed a species evolving into another species. So this would demonstrate that evolution is not supported by science.

Yet those in support of evolution claim that it has been observed. If asked to prove it, they can neither bring forth any video footage of a species evolving into another species, or they rely on scientifc claims that it has been observed, but cannot provide proof that the authors are speaking truthfuly.

And when we consider the fact that scientists have falsified evidence and lied about evolution (such as piltdown man, javaman, and ota benga), this makes evolution even more unreliable.

So the evidence should be obviously clear that perhaps the biggest hoax and lie of all-time is evolution.

here are some scientific papers for you on speciation

---

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23310964
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/44...1568302511
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...evolution/
http://iai.asm.org/content/73/12/8353.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...211.x/full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v40...333a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/414.short
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007...14?LI=true
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/00...2.0.CO%3B2

---

search results

---

BioOne
http://www.bioone.org/action/doSearch?se...ng+species
Springer
http://link.springer.com/search?query=speciation
Science magazine
http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_ar...submit=yes
Nature
http://www.nature.com/search/executeSear...&submit=go
American society for microbiology
http://iai.asm.org/search?fulltext=speci...es&x=0&y=0
Cosmos
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/search/goo...chbox_form
American Scientist
http://www.americanscientist.org/search/...speciation

---

it seems to me that there is plenty out there you just need to take the time to look for it

[KichigaiNeko]

I am thinking that the biggest hoax of all time (hence conspiracy theorists) is organised religion ...

[RonaldReagansGhost666]

Scientific evidence is based on tests and observation, yet no one has ever observed a species evolving So this would demonstrate that evolution is not supported by science.

Um...Yes, it is. I don't know what cave you've been living in.

Yet those in support of evolution claim that it has been observed. If asked to prove it, they can neither bring forth any video footage of a species evolving into another species, or they rely on scientifc claims that it has been observed, but cannot provide proof that the authors are speaking truthfuly.

Why haven't we observed macro-evolution?
Because we don't live that long!
We have observed micro-evolution many times in the past, and it is continuing to be observed today.
Micro-evolution uses the same process as macro-evolution, and therefore can be used to evident macro-evolution.
Amphibians can be considered a great example of evidence for evolution.
Similar to their fish ancestors, amphibians lay eggs in the water. These eggs resemble fish eggs. Amphibians are the decedents of lobe-finned fish. Lungfish are one type of lobe-finned fish, and are strikingly similar to the ancestors of early amphibians. Lungfish live in one of the harshest environments, suffering from seasonal droughts. In order to survive and reproduce, Lungfish must use their pectoral fins to migrate to other bodies of water.
This helps explain amphibian evolution.
May I also mention the similarities between all vertebrates?
All vertebrates obviously possess a backbone, but their anatomies all carry some basic shared features.
For example, most vertebrates possess four limbs.
These four limbs do have the potential to serve a multitude of purposes, from the usage of tools by humans to the ability to fly with birds.
With humans, there are some genetic disorders that can severely affect the shape of the limbs and of the hands.
Most notable is Lobster-Claw Syndrome, resulting in one large finger and a thumb developing.
This is just the result of one gene.
Now imagine this process happening for over 300 million years, and think of how varied the results would be.
The facial structure of vertebrates is also an indicator of common decent. With most vertebrates, their facial structure is comprised of eyes above a pair of nostrils, and a jaw below the nostrils.
This trait is shared within most FISH and TETRAPODS, which can only be an indicator of shared ancestry.

And when we consider the fact that scientists have falsified evidence and lied about evolution (such as piltdown man, javaman, and ota benga), this makes evolution even more unreliable.

So the evidence should be obviously clear that perhaps the biggest hoax and lie of all-time is evolution.

Why would you believe that intelligent, educated, rational men would deliberately obscure the truth for?
What kind of global conspiracy is going on to make up to 95 percent of all scientists accept evolution?
What validates your beliefs?

[Brian37]

Response: Exactly. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Thus proving my point that it's false.

This statement shows that you are 100% ignorant of what evolution actually states. Go back to school and open a science book.

Response: The very same theory you claim is true is what I'm referring to, which is clearly false.

And what theory is that? Please demonstrate that you actually know and understand what the actual theory is, and what it states. Until then, you are full of shit and playing word games.

Response: To the contrary, it's dummies like you that makes islam look perfect, for only a brainwashed dummy would accept your belief. Debunked as usual.

"makes islam look 'perfect'"???? BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! WOW, that was hilarious. Yeah, perfectly ignorant and GULLIBLE.

Response: Now look at this dummy. You actually proved my examples, because you can't refute them. For a new born can create a repeating pattern once it grows and gains INTELLIGENCE. Stupid imbecile. So as long as there exist examples of unintelligence being unable to create a repeating pattern, then only a dumb retard would say that unintelligence can actually create a repeating pattern. It's a clear contradiction. You can't be capable and uncapable of doing the very same thing. What are you braindead?

Then you say define my terms. Imbecile, they are not "my" terms. They're simple basic English words. If you can't comprehend simple basic English, that's not my fault the education system left you behind. Dummy. Debunked as usual.

You seem to have a severe handicap, a reading comprehension disorder. Please seek help for this. Again, you didn't define what you are trying to talk about when you used words like "intelligence", "evolution", "common sense", etc. You just ASSUMED your own flawed definitions of those words. FAIL. Provide the definitions or you have nothing.

If anything makes me want to bring back my "Redskin's Facepalm" avatar, it is continually having to see good people have to respond to such absurdity.

It never ends does it?

[Tiberius]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that if we produced footage showing an animal turning into another, it would actually disprove evolution?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you think that would help? I think we'd hear a chorus of "insha allah, allah hu akhbar"

[paulpablo]

Response,
Evolution has been observed

Debunked as usual

---

And when we consider the fact that scientists have falsified evidence and lied about evolution (such as piltdown man, javaman, and ota benga), this makes evolution even more unreliable.

Response,
You dont know a scientist did create the piltdown man as the origin of the forger is unknown, we do know who found it it was a forgery though, it was muslims through knowledge in the quran...JOKE. It was scientists. Scientists were skeptical of the piltdown man since it was first discovered. Its the same with any other forged evidence of evolution, its proven wrong by scientists.

Response
The good thing about science is it is proven wrong by other more reliable science all the time thats whats so good about it, it doesnt just say "we are right no matter what" then when you prove it wrong say "no you read that out of context" like religious people for example