View Poll Results: Did we evolve from Apes?

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    71 53.38%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    26 19.55%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    36 27.07%
Page 40 of 52 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #391
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    What did the experiments really show?

    They show that they took A2 and A3 and A4 … An and experimented on them to see IF they possibly can be parents of A0. They were not aware of biology 101 as Garza states and they “produced (barely fertile) offspring UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED” thinking, – the stupid, - that it could prove things plants do in nature.

    They were so stupid that they did not use the term ‘’barely’’, but 71%, 86%, so that I wouldn’t have to guess – is it fertile or not fertile.

    Good Lord. The species in question can produce successfully with one parent IN A LAB. As each generation gets corssed it gets more and more compatable, like genetic blending, until the Senecio eboracensis becomes exactly like Senecio vulgaris.

    However in nature due to the natural distributation of the two species (S. eboracensis is more clumped and therefore more likely to mate with others of its kind), S. eborcensis and S.vulgaris reproduce at different seasons and other factors means that they only have a 1% chance of reproducing in the wild, not a good precentage for eborcensis to blend in with its parent, in fact at these low odds the two species will genetically gradually seperate.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The experiment does NOT produce positive results. When then they write another article they are cheating making statements.
    They are cheating? Give me evidence to back up your claims. And how do they no produce positive results? Because you say so? Because you have a hunch? Because you don't like what it says?
    If a footballer is fined for cheating, there has to be EVIDENCE for the cheating.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I don’t know if I should comment again, how evolutionists do not understand what is an experiment. 158 plants out 158 million, different years and location, different mating period, no conclusive result observed, …..and the bogus conclusion is positively made.
    Again ALL YOU HAVE is your own opinion. Its like me saying scientists think differently, but I think the moon is made out of cheese.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Still the “Other studies” confirm everything I said – A1, A2, A3, were mating quite joyfully. And the stupid ones never thought that ‘’(barely fertile) offspring A01 UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED’’ was not the proof that A2 and A3 could be parents of A0 in nature as they were hoping to find. They did not find what they were hoping for, but they now come up with the bogus conclusion that it is the proof that A0 is a different specie.
    It is also clear that when A1, A2, A3….An joyfully mate with each other and produce sterile or fertile hybrids there is no need to call them all different species. The total amount of information in A NEVER increases, but rather is observed to be decreased ONLY. There should be some mathematical objective criteria, shouldn’t? It is clear that S. squalidus, S. vulgaris var. vulgaris, and York radiate groundsel are different forms, strains of the same specie S. and hybrids of the different forms remain hybrids, as they were known to our ancestors. Evolutionists rather bring in confusion when they define species so frivolously just to fit their beliefs.
    If lab conditions count justone, we have already observed lots of new species. They don't, all the speciation lab work with fruit flies only shows that speciation is possible, not that it happens. We have to look to nature for answers.

    What do you call a group of individuals in the natural world who cannot mate with anyone else but themselves. They cannot share genetic information with anyone else and sustain a population with them. That is a species. That is Senecio eborensis.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The reported observations have established that I am correct and the Yorker CAN mate with other Senecios and his parents. The objection is made here that according to Garza who is a biologist I do not know biology 101, and that according to the biologist Garza I was supposed to read out in the article what was not written in it. It is clear the ‘’other studies’’ totally ignore Garza’s biology 101, too.

    No you are wrong, it can mate sucessfully with human hands with ONE PARENT. In nature it can mate sucessfully with neither of them. Funny if S. eborensis and S. vulgaris is one species yet they cannot mate with each other, a bit odd for a species don't you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Frankly this is an eye opening case. I did not think that evolutionists now have no barrier which would stop them from cheating. Evolution should be stopped immediately.

    If you accuse us of cheating, then show me evidence that we are wrong. Proper emperical evidence, please go on dont be shy.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    ‘’Unfortunately, it was not possible to continue the analysis over future generations to the point where it could be said with confidence that stabilized introgressants had been produced that were identical in form to either var. hibernicus or York radiate groundsel’’

    ’What is clear from the present analysis is that stabilized introgressants of Senecio can be produced in several different ways, which raises the question as to which of these pathways is (or are) most likely to have led to the formation of var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel in the wild.’’

    ‘’Finally, the fact that interspecific hybridization occurs regularly, though infrequently, in natural populations and the finding that stabilized hybrid products of later generation are likely to be produced with some ease, would indicate that multiple origins of S. vulgaris var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel may be common in the British Isles.’’


    Anyone who can read can see that the real observation suggests and suggests only but does not prove that A2 and A3 are NOT the sole parents of A0. It does NOT make ANY positive conclusion that A2 and A3 are parents of A0, the Yorker.

    The ‘’other sources’’ meet requirements of a scientific publication in spite of the use of the word evolution in the meaning totally different from the meaning we have been using it here. It provides a full report for peers to object, agree, repeat, use the results.

    The fact is that that the real experiment was designed to estimate what Senecios could be parents of their hybrid Yorker.
    The fact is that the answer was not given with any certainty but rather points to multiple origins of the Yorker.
    The fact is that - contrarily to evolution 101 - hybridization occurs regularly in natural populations (according to the authors).
    The fact is that there is no indication here that it is the first observation in history of natural and artificial hybridization that it somehow is not a dead end (sterile) or does not lead to mating with the same species.
    The fact is that there is no possibility of an intellectually honest answer from an evolutionist. If you are not a biologist, an evolutionist will try to pull all kinds of ‘’biology 101’’ on you, which has nothing to do with biology but rather with evolution 101 aka known as deception.
    It is not the first specation event we have, thats why there is not mention of it being the first one.

    Hybridisation does occur quite often in plants. What is rare is they provide a fertile offspring and cannot mate with their parents.

    The fact is justone has nothing but opinion. He has no evidence to support his claims. He just repeats that evolutionists are lying over and over again, without backing up his claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The bottom line:
    1. S. vulgaris and S. S. squalidus are NOT found to be the parents of the Yorker. Evolutionists cheat.
    2. Even if they were, the Yorker still mates with them. Evolutionists cheat.
    Not in nature. Funny species you have if they cannot mate sucessfully in nature
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    3. Even if did not mate, there is no indication that this is the first hybrid not to be a dead end. Evolutionists cheat.
    It isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    4. Even if there was such indication, there is no observation that animals and plants are related. Even if evolutionists exhibit plant-like thinking, they still remain apes. Botanic and Biology are 2 different disciplines. Evolutionists cheat.

    No they are not. WTF??? Another Plants don't count whine? Plants evolve too.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    5. Bubbling that they are scientists because they use measurable they runaway from any attempt to apply any measurements, any mathematics they scream that this is heresy of devil, I mean creationists. Simple measurements like an amount of information in specie puts them into religious stupor. They know mathematics is from devil.
    Mathematics has hardly anything to say in biology. Biology is too chaotic to be mathematical.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    6. In spite of the fact that evolution has been mathematically disproved and they cannot rise any objections they will ignore reason and common sense and will keep on going with their immeasurable fantasies.

    Fantasies? Suppose all those transitional fossils are just in our imaginations huh? Suppose our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination?

    You are living in a dream world of your own making justone.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    7. In spite of the fact that Tucker proved that humans and chimps have 70% in common DNA and we have no idea what does it mean, they will keep on spreading lies that it is 96% and it means that we have a common ancestor with apes, - look they still are making fantasies how apes turned into humans. Tucker can scream, type, prove, they will ignore him, when he dies nobody will remember his discoveries, but one justone with grey hair and a cane will come to his grave to put a glass of vodka covered with a slice of bread on it.

    Tucker didn't count on ERV DNA it seems.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I think I have had enough of it. Neither evolutionists can be reasoned nor they get exhausted in their attacks on human reason in their twists, spins and lies. I just picked up a few from GarzaUK’s posts, but they are full of.
    Evidence?
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    If somebody besides the fanatics has a question or argument of any kind, please don’t think it is stupid, the stupid thing would be not to ask. If I have time I will answer.
    Yeah as long as you don't actually provide evidence justone will hear any arguments and questions lol. All he has is opinion. He hasn't given any facts or evidence for his claims. He says "the fact is" quite alot but yet nothing to back up his fact.

    A fact without evidence is like a limp dick...usless.

    I don't think you ever expected me to pull up Senecio eborensis because it wasn't on your list lol lol.
    Observed Instances of Speciation

    AND YET AS ALWAYS YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE MY QUESTION - WHY ARE SCIENTISTS (ATHEIST AND RELIGIOUS) LYING TO THE WORLD ABOUT EVOLUTION? THIS IS THE SIXTH TIME!!! GROW A PAIR AND ANSWER!
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  2. #392
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Tucker didn't count on ERV DNA it seems.
    To be fair, I was only pointing out that the 96% number is often cited but the more accurate number for genetic similarity is actually closer to 70%, which would include ERV DNA in it.

    My argument was that there is often an over-portrayal, or flawed portrayal of the significance of certain data, not that the theory is false, per se.

    Saying 96% shared DNA between humans and chimps is disingenuous because those numbers don't really mean anything regarding the gene variance, which is based more on genetic alignment than the code as a whole.

    I also was saying that the conclusions that are reached are extrapolated from these data in such a way that it doesn't necessarily follow with the data as it exists.

    For example, your examples from hybridization and such don't fit with the concept of random mutation and natural selection.

    All they really show is that 1. Our definition of species requires revising because fertile offspring can come to exist with inter-species mating. 2. That new species can come into existence under certain conditions that do NOT include classical natural selection. These new species come to exist suddenly without any real environmental or competitive cause. It's not "selection" at all. They are produced because the parents have the capabilities to produce such a creature when placed together. That means they are not entirely random. These species can only come into existence under certain conditions that are very far from random.

    Also, the idea that a single species can mutate over time into two or more different species is not supported by the data. In fact, in the hybridization case, we can clearly see that two species have come together to make a third species. If we assume that the parent species came from a common ancestor, the evolutionary "branch" is actually a loop where two branches split off and then rejoin! Fascinating stuff, but it doesn't support random selection at all.

    It actually gives evidence that speciation is not simply due to random selection or beneficial mutations.

    The reason why I have issue with that is that observable data is showing us that the common beliefs may indeed be flawed. Random selection may not be the driving force behind evolution.

    The evidence you've cited should, at the very least, give pause. Speciation is not happening as the theory predicted it would. This means that there is at some point along the line, a flaw in the theory.

    What we know for sure is that there are striking similarities in Human and Chimpanzee DNA. We also know that speciation can occur under certain not-entirely-random, but not exclusively non-random, circumstances.

    What we don't know is what any of this means exactly. All we have is conjecture until more data can be collected. We must be willing to say that our conjectures are flat out wrong when the data fails to support them.

    That's the main point in my philosophy vs. science debate. Evolutionary theory is more philosophical than scientific because it seeks to explain something based on logic, not pure, raw evidence being supported over and over again through experimentation.

    Most scientific theories are more philosophy than science. Science is the data collection and experimentation phase, while philosophy is the "thinking" phase.

    Even if the logic is based on premises that have scientific evidence that supports them, it is still primarily logic.

    IMO, there's nothing wrong with correctly labeling something.

  3. #393
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Also, the idea that a single species can mutate over time into two or more different species is not supported by the data.
    You mean like the data the demonsrtates conclusively that hyracotherium, one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey, three distinct species?

  4. #394
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Actually just took me half an hour to find the data.

    Morphically speaking it is obvious the SENECIO EBORACENSIS is a new hybrid species caused by Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidis crossing with each other in a chance event. But I got something more.

    http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100501.pdf

    The latter is most likely the product of fusion between an unreduced gamete of S. squalidus and a normal reduced gamete of S. vulgaris . Lowe and Abbott (2000) proposed that S. eboracensis originated in a few generations by segregation from either the triploid or tetraploid hybrid, or following backcrossing of either hybrid to S. vulgaris . The hybrid status of S. eboracensis is evident from its intermediate morphology and its possession of an additive isozyme profile (Irwin and Abbott 1992).
    Speaking English they look similar to your eye. I established long time ago that evolution exists only in the eye of the beholder.

    Proposed is not established or observed. I quoted the proposition. However the experiment/experiment did not result in establishment of the status of the Yorker as the son of the proposed parents.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Now the DNA. A preliminary survey of RAPD and inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) variation has shown that a high proportion of markers that distinguish the two parent species are present in S. eboracensis , indicating that this new hybrid species contains a significant portion of the genomes of
    each parent (Abbott et al. 2003).

    All the genetics tests are in the paper below.
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...1&blobtype=pdf (abbot et al, 2003)
    Do you understand what does preliminary mean? This the end of the question. But, but, just for you OK let’s say it is not prelimenary. It does not mean that they do not contain a significant portion of the genomes of any other Senecios, when it is clear that ALL Senecios must have proportions of genomes of Senecios. It does not mean that the authors make a positive statement that they do not.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    RAPD used in standard parental DNA identification cases such as paternal identification for a child or the identification of a murderer or rapist. Basically it is used in the court of law and is pretty damn accurate as many dead beat dads and murderers will attest to.

    RAPD - rDNA: Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA (RAPD)
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAPD]RAPD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    This makes the method popular for comparing the DNA of biological systems that have not had the attention of the scientific community, or in a system in which relatively few DNA sequences are compared (it is not suitable for forming a DNA databank).
    Its resolving power is much lower than targeted, species specific DNA comparison methods, such as short tandem repeats. In recent years, RAPD has been used to characterize, and trace, the phylogeny of diverse plant and animal species.
    Limitations of RAPD
    • Nearly all RAPD markers are dominant, i.e. it is not possible to distinguish whether a DNA segment is amplified from a locus that is heterozygous (1 copy) or homozygous (2 copies). Co-dominant RAPD markers, observed as different-sized DNA segments amplified from the same locus, are detected only rarely.
    • PCR is an enzymatic reaction, therefore the quality and concentration of template DNA, concentrations of PCR components, and the PCR cycling conditions may greatly influence the outcome.
    • Mismatches between the primer and the template may result in the total absence of PCR product as well as in a merely decreased amount of the product. Thus, the RAPD results can be difficult to interpret.


    In short RAPD is good for prelimanary estimates. It provides an indication that A1 and A2 either both or one may be be parents of A0, it provides no positive conclusion.

    The bottom line is – the experiment. The experiment did not allow to observe that they were the parents and the son does not cross with them. Experiment is the key word of science.



    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Oh another paper just for fun, explaining why due to the sexual isolation of the Senecio Eboracensis it should be classified as a new species.

    Heredity - Reproductive isolation of a new hybrid species, Senecio eboracensis Abbott & Lowe (Asteraceae)

    ‘’and is a likely consequence of recombining both parental genomes within this new taxon. ’’
    Evolutionists cannot understand a simple question – is it a likely consequence or it is the consequence?

    ‘’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, [ I guess they have searched ALL the wild] and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’

    1/769 is not 0, it is 0.13%. In science they do not say ‘’only one’’ they say “one”.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    ‘’Natural crossing between S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris was recorded to be very low (between 0 and 1.46%) in the wild, but rose to 18.3% when individuals of S. eboracensis were surrounded by plants of S. vulgaris.’’
    Common. Please.18.3 % is recorded. In science it does not mean that S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris do not cross. In science it means that they do cross. 1.46% does not mean that they do not cross, it means that they do cross. It is either recorded as I have been stating from the beginning or it is not as you keep on trying… I don’t know what you are trying…

    ‘’It was concluded that strong breeding barriers exist between the new hybrid species and its two parents.’’

    Sure they do exist, I pointed to them.

    One can see how evolutionists always cheat. I asked do you have a proof of the parents? And – what? you were waiting for for 2 days? So far you keep on submitting the same numbers, the same observations. I detaily answered all of them, and gave all possible contingences for a case if I am wrong in any of the 7 objections.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Mathematics has nothing to say on evolution, in fact nothing to say on biology at all. Biology is not black and white like Mathematics is or even Physics. Life can mutate and degrade, succumb to random events, make choices to what mate to reproduce with. Life is not rarely bound by rules or laws. You ever wonder why biology has rarely any laws when physics has plenty of them?
    I DO WANT Ikari TO HEAR THAT!!!!. There is no measurable in evolution. This is what a biologist says.

    Biology exercised by Christian Creationists scientists has plenty of math in it starting from the papers of the Christian Creationists scientist Gregor Mendel, a trained mathematician and physicist. I am not surprised that Darwin couldn’t comprehend the text of Mendel. I am not surprised that you have no clue about abilities of mathematics. I am not surprised that you do not realize that your statement Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time is a mathematical expression (written wrong, it should be Macroevolution = Microevolution *Time.) I am not surprised that you have no clue that random events are a subject of mathematics.



    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    You cannot compare the uncertainity of life with the set in stone predictability of mathematics. Doing so, shows a poor understanding of evolution.
    Let me remind you about the uncertainty principal in quantum mechanics. Mathematics and Physics deal with things that cannot even be visualized, which are not even things. I am not surprised that you have no clue about abilities of mathematics.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    The fact you always use wikipedia in your arguments says ALOT about you justone. How is it a shameless cheat justone, BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH EVIDENCE, rather than just aimlessly slander people.
    I do always use wiki when it is suitable to use wiki. And I slandered exactly what I aimed at – the authors of wiki’s article I used. In other cases I use it to make it simple for the audience. It is not all wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    I did it.
    Studies, you mean those books? Anyone opinated wacko can write a book. Shall I take all those alien abduction books as fact too?
    You say you did and then you ask question what do I mean.

    I meant other studies YOU pointed to and I linked to them, because you refused to do in time.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Yeah you pointed it out, yet your points are worthless WITHOUT EVIDENCE justone. Just because you say so doesn't make it true
    I quoted YOUR authors. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality. How many more times you are going to come with the same stuff? You posted the link. I pointed to a number of problems, false statements. You keep on bringing Exactly the same problems the same false statements over and over again. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality.
    Last edited by justone; 05-07-09 at 07:02 PM.

  5. #395
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No. I made perfect sense. Climate change is typically a slow process, as is evolution.
    I agree, which is why I'm confused. How is it that we agree on that, yet come to totally different conclusions?
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  6. #396
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    I agree, which is why I'm confused. How is it that we agree on that, yet come to totally different conclusions?
    You made a mistake somewhere.

  7. #397
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You made a mistake somewhere.
    Are you sure it ain't you?
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  8. #398
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Are you sure it ain't you?
    Yup. Mistakes don't happen on this end. Evoltion is sound science and observed fact.

    I notice the people denying evolution aren't telling us what they believe did happen.

  9. #399
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Yup. Mistakes don't happen on this end. Evoltion is sound science and observed fact.

    I notice the people denying evolution aren't telling us what they believe did happen.
    Sure they do. The Earth was made in 6 days. Man appeared on Earth slightly over 4,000 years ago. And a bunch of liberals ran all over the planet burying dinosaur bones so it would look like they were here 65 million years ago.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  10. #400
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Sure they do. The Earth was made in 6 days. Man appeared on Earth slightly over 4,000 years ago. And a bunch of liberals ran all over the planet burying dinosaur bones so it would look like they were here 65 million years ago.
    Well, they haven't actually said anything as silly as that. I'm sure whatever it is they do believe is equally silly, but it may, for all I can see from what they've posted, be that the Keebler Elves moonlight and cook up pre-designed DNA in their hollow tree or something. Of course, then they have to explain who created the elves, and then they have to explain who created that guy, and then they have to explain where that girl that did that came from, but they're assidiously avoiding all that by merely posting nonsensical easily countered refutations to established science.

    Oh, and they apparently say the people who understand the science are lying their asses off, but won't say why.

Page 40 of 52 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •