What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Will Bouwman]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

So I have.

[Flannel Jesus]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

[Immanuel Can]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

So I have.

Well, two things: first, a complete accounting of all the intermediate stages of development of human beings, and secondly, a complete fossil record of the (allegedly) billions of "missing links" and failed evolutionary stages of human development, as a matter of empirical confirmation.

Oh, and you'd have to show that God didn't exist, too, since He says it happened otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

Right. There's no evidence of macro-evolution, even among lower species: dogs don't change into birds, or paramecia into cats. There is some evidence of intra-species modifications, such as red cats, black cats, orange cats, taller cats, etc. But none of cats-to-whales, or whatever.

Moreover, since the earlier frauds like the archaeopteryx have long been debunked, we're missing a whole ton of "links" in the evolutionary narrative. Moreover, what's needed is not just one sample -- like the archaeopteryx -- but all the billions of proposed "evolutionary fails" that the theory would require.

And we just don't have them. Why would that be?

[Age]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

LOL

[Age]

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

So I have.

Well, two things: first, a complete accounting of all the intermediate stages of development of human beings, and secondly, a complete fossil record of the (allegedly) billions of "missing links" and failed evolutionary stages of human development, as a matter of empirical confirmation.

Oh, and you'd have to show that God didn't exist, too, since He says it happened otherwise.

Are you really trying to come across as ABSOLUTE FOOL, here, "immanuel can".

LOL Because 'this one', "itself", has not had DIRECT ACCESS to ALL OF the changes over the last few million years, from when this was written, of human history, it will then just BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that a 'creature' or 'thing', with male genitalia, created ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, ALL AT ONCE, and with NONE of them changing AT ALL.

Which makes one WONDER if "immanuel can" also BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the new breed of dog, called the 'danish-swedish farmdog', was also created by God, at the exact same moment as EVERY thing ELSE was, supposedly, CREATED, and is, in fact, NOT an EVOLVED breed from the coming-together of two other breeds of dogs?

And, WORSE STILL, "immanuel can", then 'tries to' USE the: God, Itself, TELLS 'me' 'the truth' of what 'actually happened'.

So, AGAIN, are you, REALLY, trying to come across as A COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE IMBECILE, here?

[Age]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

Right. There's no evidence of macro-evolution, even among lower species: dogs don't change into birds, or paramecia into cats.

LOL 'lower species'. 'This one' has been SO DISTORTED and has become SO DISILLUSIONED that it ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it', and 'its species', is ACTUALLY BETTER and/or HIGHER than others, and other species, are.

Even what it EXPECTS happens in evolution is BEYOND being COMPREHENSIBLE.

There is some evidence of intra-species modifications, such as red cats, black cats, orange cats, taller cats, etc. But none of cats-to-whales, or whatever.

LOL

AGAIN, could 'this one' come across MORE TWISTED and DERANGED, here?

Moreover, since the earlier frauds like the archaeopteryx have long been debunked, we're missing a whole ton of "links" in the evolutionary narrative. Moreover, what's needed is not just one sample -- like the archaeopteryx -- but all the billions of proposed "evolutionary fails" that the theory would require.

And we just don't have them. Why would that be?

BECAUSE A 'Thing', with male sex organs, CREATED EVERY species, and EVERY thing ALL AT ONCE, hey "immanuel can".

Now, would you like to inform the readers, here, of WHEN, EXACTLY, this CREATION of ALL things, all at once, ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and OCCURRED, EXACTLY.

After all you do have DIRECT ACCESS TO that CREATURE, with a penis and gonads, who says it Created ALL things ALL AT ONCE, and NOT THROUGH EVOLUTION, right?

So, has It TOLD you WHEN 'this' ALL HAPPENED?

If no, then WHY NOT?

WHY would It SAY, 'it happened this way', but NOT SAY WHEN, nor even WHY?

[Age]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

Right. There's no evidence of macro-evolution, even among lower species: dogs don't change into birds, or paramecia into cats.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN 'evolution' that WOULD SAY that A 'dog', itself, would change INTO some OTHER 'thing'.

LOL BY DEFINITION A 'dog' IS A 'dog' and IS NOT, and COULD NOT BE, something ELSE.

And, to IMAGINE or EXPECT that 'this would, or even could, happen' is BEYOND COMPREHENDING.

you REALLY DO HAVE A LOT MORE TO LEARN ABOUT 'evolution', AND 'creation'.

First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.

Secondly, EVERY thing 'evolves', through 'constant-change'.

Which is, REALLY, VERY, VERY BASIC, SIMPLE, and VERY EASY TO COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND.

And, ONCE you have, ALSO, COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD, FULLY, these MOST BASIC and SIMPLE PRINCIPLES, then you, TOO, WILL KNOW HOW TO ANSWER the QUESTION, 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?'

[Age]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

Right. There's no evidence of macro-evolution, even among lower species: dogs don't change into birds, or paramecia into cats. There is some evidence of intra-species modifications, such as red cats, black cats, orange cats, taller cats, etc.

USING the words 'some evidence' is NOT, and I will repeat IS NOT, LESSENING 'evolution', itself, and strengthening 'creation', itself.

All USING those words is REALLY DOING is just HIGHLIGHTING and REVEALING MORE your UNDERLYING BELIEFS, which are PREVENTING and STOPPING you FROM SEEING what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, here.

By the way, and AGAIN, there IS NO ACTUAL 'creation' VERSUS 'evolution'.

And, WHY this IS is BECAUSE BOTH EXIST, and BOTH HAVE CO-EXISTED TOGETHER, FOREVER.

[Age]

Moreover, since the earlier frauds like the archaeopteryx have long been debunked, we're missing a whole ton of "links" in the evolutionary narrative. Moreover, what's needed is not just one sample -- like the archaeopteryx -- but all the billions of proposed "evolutionary fails" that the theory would require.

And we just don't have them. Why would that be?

you thinking 'creation' OR 'evolution' human beings have only been around for relatively NO AMOUNT OF TIME, so WHY you relatively NOTHING in relation to 'time' have NOT YET OBTAINED and GAINED the so-called 'links' IS BECAUSE you 'lot' STILL HAVE A LOT MORE TO LEARN, HERE, IN Life.

But, LOL just because one might NOT YET HAVE A 'link' NEVER EVER MEANS that EVERY thing was ALL created, ALL AT ONCE, at one particular 'time' or 'moment' in the so-called 'past'.

[Impenitent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRguZr0xCOc

-Imp

[Skepdick]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

So I have.

Well...Evolutionary theory claims to explain how beings capable of understanding evolution came to exist, so grab some ingredients from the periodic table, head off to your nearest lab and produce a system that can understand its own synthesis.

Scientific reproducibility and all that.

What I cannot create, I do not understand --Richard Feynman

[Age]

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

So I have.

Well...Evolutionary theory claims to explain how beings capable of understanding evolution came to exist, so grab some ingredients from the periodic table, head off to your nearest lab and produce a system that can understand its own synthesis.

Scientific reproducibility and all that.

How much 'time' will you give 'us', exactly?

[Skepdick]

...

Fuck off, Age.

[Immanuel Can]

you thinking...

Again, Age, I have zero interest in your comments. They are IQ 95, at most. You're in the wrong place.