Conquer Club

Viceroy63 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if this has been said yet, as I have not read the entire thread, but the THEORY of evolution totally goes against the 2nd LAW of Thremodynamics. In a nutshell, that LAW states that when left on their own, things will go from a stat of order to that of disorder.

In a fully closed system, which our Earth is not.

Player, he did state, "If left on their own!"

That the earth is not part of a closed system is besides the point. If mankind once had a life span of 1,000 years but now lives no greater than a hundred and some what number of years then it can only be due to the fact that even information is breaking down at the DNA Level. perhaps not breaking down exactly but being corrupted none the less. Regardless of whether or not the earth is an open system, the DNA information strand is not.

Since when it is given that humans once lived 1000 years? This idea is largely based on some misreadings of the Bible and misunderstandings of how ancient Hebrews detailed time.

At any rate, the rest of what you say IS irrelevant. DNA is not in a closed system. It is part of life. Thermodynamics applies only to non-living material. Life itself inherently opposes it.

See, you conveniently forget the "if left alone" bit. Life is not alone, nor are chemical processes.

Viceroy63 wrote:Taking aside that Genomes from different parents can be combined in the offspring to produce a new feature, what is that really saying but that a Genome for blond hair that was turned off in Dad is now turned on in the Child through Mom. That is not an increase of information but one of many ways in which genomes get turned on or off. Natural Selection also does that. It's not evolution. But that we don't live to be a thousand years old any longer is definitely a corruption or breakdown in the DNA system.

#1. No. We have an alphabet with 26 letters.. so far, but people can still can and do create brand new words, pretty much all the time.

#2. The idea that this is NOT evolution, is something, again, put forward by Creationists who have finally recognized that their arguments are faulty.. but instead of just admitting they were wrong, have decided to change the definitions of the worlds they use. What you say only makes sense if you ignore what is actually said in evolutionary theory.. as well as lot of other science.

Viceroy63 wrote: There is simply no evidence of DNA adding to itself in such a way as to produce a better being.

Define "better". Biologists don't use such descriptions much because "better" is purely subjective. Instead, the reference of natural selection is "fitter" aka "more highly adapted". The corollary to that is "more specialized". The more "highly evolved" a species is, the more specialized they are. BUT-- here is the conundrum that falsifies your entire claim. The more specialized they are,the better able they might be to outcompete other creatures in their particular specialized conditions, UNTIL things change. When things change, then the highly specialized creatures are the first to die off.

Viceroy63 wrote:Otherwise there would not be as many diseases running rampant as there are. Man could then evolve to the point where his body creates better anti-bodies against sickness and disease. Or at least increased age. But this is not what we see. The more that medicine advances the more sickness and disease we see.

People DO have better resistance.. and then the diseases evolve.

In fact, you present the classic parasite/disease paradox. A disease that is too effective kills off its host.. and thus itself, having no other place to live. This has happened in time. But, the population impacted dies, the disease dies and it ends.
Sooo...an effective parasite or disease has to have alternatives. Effective parasites generally don't actually kill their hosts, they just weaken them a bit. This may lead to early demise, but this gives the parasite time to migrate. Often the most effective strategy is to have another host. For example, some parasites go from human feces to snails.. etc. Small pox is a classic human example. It does kill almost 100% of those infected. HOWEVER, it was able to persist in an altered form in cows. Cow pox and small pox are related, close enough that the milking maids who had contracted cow pox did not get small pox (something you might remember lead to the creation of vaccines).

Anyway, the above scenario it just wrong.. and shows one of many reasons why young earth arguments are disdained so often. The "facts" presented are just not correct.

Viceroy63 wrote:So that Law of thermodynamics makes perfect sense in evolution not being possible because that would mean that the genome would have to add to itself in order to make itself better and that simply does not happen. It has never been observed in nature or in a laboratory where DNA has added to itself to create a better more perfect being.

Haven't even gotten into the bit about DNA does change in a laboratory, but the reference to Thermodynamics is not just wrong, its entirely and completely off base.

Viceroy63 wrote:In the video below, Dawkins is not only stumped by the question but his answer completely avoids the question all together. The question is, Can you give an example where the Genome is known to have added to itself. (I would add that this would go against that law of thermodynamics). All Richie has to do is simply give us an example of this happening but he does not. Instead he gives us an explanation that we are all modern animals. Wow! Impressive block.

He was "stumped" much like most adults will be stumped by the question "Is the Easter Bunny Rudolph's cousin or brother?"

Its just so divested from any reality that its difficult to even approach an answer without being utterly condescending or launching into a book-length explanation.

He actually DID answer it brilliantly, though. The fact that we are all modern animals is itself evidence of the change. There were earlier, less complex creatures. All creatures alive today do not have the same number of genes. They can be shown to have come from earlier species.


In fact, the Logan berry is a triploid plant, generated within our lifetime. Just to clarify, "triploid" means that it has not just an added gene, but a whole added strand of DNA.

The problem is not that the "question" wasn't answered, its that the guy did not get the affirmation to his question that he demanded. Of course, no real scientist COULD give the answer demanded.

mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if this has been said yet, as I have not read the entire thread, but the THEORY of evolution totally goes against the 2nd LAW of Thremodynamics.

Nothing on the earth can really be tied to the second law of thermodynamics as there is this large thing in our vicinity that is generating entropy at a massive scale ... it's called "THE SUN." The second law applies to "closed" systems, not systems where you dump a ton of energy into it on a continual basis.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote: There is simply no evidence of DNA adding to itself in such a way as to produce a better being.

Define "better".

I'm reminded of that old joke, "I don't have to outrun the bear; I have to outrun YOU." That's how evolution works. You just have have an advantage over the other creature; it doesn't have to be better. You could, for example, eat a different section of the tree; it's probably not a better leaf that the other section, but the other section has been thinned out because everyone else is eating that section. Given the fact that the world is a lot like Monty Python where the great foot of species extinction squashes the good and the bad, being better is sometimes less important than being lucky. Who really knows if the horseshoe crab is the ultimate survivor or just damn lucky, but he's been around forever, and better creatures are not.

mejihn7779 wrote:

Check and Mate, atheists!

Now, talking snowmen, that would be a genuine miracle.

jonesthecurl wrote:Now, talking snowmen, that would be a genuine miracle.

Ok, everybody pray for a talking snowman, in 3...2....1.....

PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. No. We have an alphabet with 26 letters.. so far, but people can still can and do create brand new words, pretty much all the time.

#2. The idea that this is NOT evolution, is something, again, put forward by Creationists who have finally recognized that their arguments are faulty.. but instead of just admitting they were wrong, have decided to change the definitions of the worlds they use. What you say only makes sense if you ignore what is actually said in evolutionary theory.. as well as lot of other science.

I wish that I had more time.

Yes, we only have 26 letters in the English alphabet; But no matter how hard we try to recombine, mutate or alter the letters, they will never evolve to form Chinese writings. And that is what is false about the theory of evolution. Micro evolution and Macro evolution are not the same thing. Yet that's what Darwinist do all the time. The old switcharoo con where evolution is evolution not matter how you look at it. And if it works in one area then it must work in all areas. Why even stars evolve??? Into what we don't know for no one ever saw it happen, but perhaps they evolve into pretty butterflies???

Viceroy63 wrote:Yes, we only have 26 letters in the English alphabet; But no matter how hard we try to recombine, mutate or alter the letters, they will never evolve to form Chinese writings. And that is what is false about the theory of evolution. Micro evolution and Macro evolution are not the same thing. Yet that's what Darwinist do all the time. The old switcharoo con where evolution is evolution not matter how you look at it. And if it works in one area then it must work in all areas. Why even stars evolve??? Into what we don't know for no one ever saw it happen, but perhaps they evolve into pretty butterflies???

There are more letters in the English alphabet than there are letters in DNA. (No that wasn't a pun, although it can double as one.) And while we can't see stars evolve, we can see old stars and new stars just like we can see old people and young people at the same time and compare them. They evolve into different things depending on their size, by the way. It's all mass related.

Viceroy63 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. No. We have an alphabet with 26 letters.. so far, but people can still can and do create brand new words, pretty much all the time.

#2. The idea that this is NOT evolution, is something, again, put forward by Creationists who have finally recognized that their arguments are faulty.. but instead of just admitting they were wrong, have decided to change the definitions of the worlds they use. What you say only makes sense if you ignore what is actually said in evolutionary theory.. as well as lot of other science.

I wish that I had more time.

Yes, we only have 26 letters in the English alphabet; But no matter how hard we try to recombine, mutate or alter the letters, they will never evolve to form Chinese writings. And that is what is false about the theory of evolution. Micro evolution and Macro evolution are not the same thing. Yet that's what Darwinist do all the time. The old switcharoo con where evolution is evolution not matter how you look at it. And if it works in one area then it must work in all areas. Why even stars evolve??? Into what we don't know for no one ever saw it happen, but perhaps they evolve into pretty butterflies???

Are the languages of the world designed by God or did they result from an evolutionary process?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Are the languages of the world designed by God or did they result from an evolutionary process?

Ironically you can argue that both is true (not that I would want to do so). Unlike DNA, language "evolves" at a exceptionally rapid rate. In the English language whole parts of speech (example second person familiar; thou, thee, thy, thine) have vanished except for cases where people want to sound impressive. (And this in a span of less than three hundred years.) Languages mutate, merge and combine frequently. Combined languages can become their own language (Yiddish). You can go even further back, with King James English, Shakespeare's English, Chaucer's English, and that of Beowulf.

Hwæt wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum
þēod-cyninga þrym gefrūnon
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon
Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum
monegum mægþum meodo-setla oftēah
egsian eorl syððan ǣrest weorþan

Of course the Bible would say that all the languages weren't designed by God, but He caused them all to be (the tower of Babel).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:There is simply no evidence of DNA adding to itself in such a way as to produce a better being.

Define "better".

Evolution Has Never Occurred!
By Viceroy63

[01] Perhaps "Better" is not the word. Evolution claims small, minute and gradual changes over a very long period of time. If these small changes are to continue then they must be an improvement on the Original. Since there is no example of this in the fossil records, we must make one up.

[02] Lets say that Hypothetically all creature had only one eye originally. After all why would you need to have two pair of eyes just to see? So all of creation saw well enough with just one eye and everyone had just one eye and it was a very good eye but then came a type of improvement. A kind of smaller eye appeared at a distance from the Original eye on only some of the creatures. It was not as good as the original eye but with that second eye, this new improve and more "evolved" creature could now see and even judge distance by triangulation.

[03] So while this new eye could not see color as the original one could, or as large as the original eye, nor even as complex in structure; Yet with this second eye this new and improved creature could now see distance to judge better and became a terrific hunter in the process. In the mean time all other creatures in the animal kingdom continue with just one eye because one eye was good enough to see where you were going. The fact that all of creation has a set of eyes (for the most part), would tend to indicate a Designer or "Intelligent Design!" Not evolution.

[04] After many millions of years we see this second eye becoming more larger and complex like the original eye. How do we know this? Because the fossilized skulls of millions of years would show a little tiny hole where the second eye first evolved and other fossilized skulls show that hole getting larger and larger until it became the second eye. You can not say that there is a problem with finding these intermediaries because it take millions and millions of years. In all that time you should be able to find many such skulls in the fossilized rocks.

[05] Some fossils would show this second eye above the original eye in the forehead while other fossils show different divergences. Perhaps the divergent eye in the forehead also evolved into still another eye forming a sort of triangle from the original eye to form two more eyes in the forehead. Some divergent skulls of this minute improvement would show just two eyes one above the other while others showed three in a triangle and perhaps another would show even four eyes.

[06] Perhaps all the divergent eyes cease to evolve or better still continue to evolve into the best possible eyes, just two eyes, side by side just above the nose at ear level in front of the skull because this is the best evolutionary position for a pair of eyes to judge distance. All other divergences became evolutionary dead ends. This is where Natural Selection could actually come into play to protect those that were evolving a great pair of eyes and weeding out the unnecessary odd eyes out. If three eyes are not necessary then why have them?

[07] Do you see now from this example what I mean by small improvements from one eyed creatures that evolved into two eyed creatures over millions of years, thus adding to it's genetic information. And this is of course a very bad example because it's only a mutation and not an evolving. Developing a second eye, where one eye already exist, is not the same as Evolving into a different creature all together. It may not even be considered adding to the DNA but rather duplicating the DNA in that particular Genome to form two pairs of the same eye information that already exist in the DNA.

[08] Now if it were to happen that at one time there were no "Bird-Men" with wings and then a type of extra arms grew out of man's back to help him hang on from trees while they used their regular arms to eat the fruits from the tree, and then these arms in their backs became wings first only useful for short gliding from falling from the trees to the ground in order to escape predators at the tree level, but then those "Bird-Men" grew a large extensive sternum chest bone like birds have that help them to fly and those arm/wings evolved into fully powerful wings for flight to create a species of "Bird-Men" then that is what I would call evolution and DNA adding to itself to create a more better/improved being.

[09] But we don't see this in the fossil records. Every instance where we see what is considered to be a missing link is either a fully formed creature like Archaeopteryx or a Dawinists Hoax like Lucy or Australopithecus Sediba Hoax. In the case of the latter there are no bones presented as evidence. Only, "take our word for it, it's real???" Just click on the link and watch the video to see what I mean.

[10] As mentioned in the case of Archaeopteryx, the supposedly missing link between dinosaurs and birds? Yet this creature is a fully formed bird with a set of choppers instead of a beak. Where are the missing links that lead to this bird? From which dinosaur exactly? You see the problem? All creatures in the fossil records are found fully form and not lacking in anything. If even the number of eyes were different then we could say, "Hey, this is odd, at one time creatures only had one eye and then later grew a second pair?" "Oh, and not all of them but only some of them?" This would be undeniable evolution. Or at least the possibility of change from one species to another.

[11] But we don't see this happening at all. In no instance do we ever see a creature or a DNA pattern, adding information to itself to make or create or evolve into a better creature/animal. We don't see this happening in the Homo bones from monkey to ape because it could not have been a monkey or an ape and still be a common ancestor to both. It had to have been something else. Something like an ape but not an ape, and something like a man but not a man yet still retain features of Both. To date there is no missing link that would show beyond any shadow of a doubt a creature adding to itself to become a "better being."

[12] Some would say But what about when scientist create what is called, "Micro Evolution" in a laboratory. Like in the quote and links below...

oss spy wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:

oss spy wrote:I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory. Evolutionist make these claims of so much overwhelming evidence but actually are confusing one thing with another. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL AT ANY TIME! It is after all the fossil record that is used to prove evolution yet where are the intermediate species between Ape and Man? Or any other species. You just can't show the bones of an ape and the bones of a modern man and say, "See, evolution."

Every time that scientist have showed this in the fossil records, it has been a Hoax or at the very least a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. But the fact that most of the evidence has been a Hoax must leads one to ask, Why? Why do scientist ever need to lie or mislead the public instead of just admitting that there is no evidence to support this claim?

In fact I dare you to post that evidence. I will refute it here one at a time.

All that scientist and biologist have been able to show is MUTATIONS. And most of the times mutations have been harmful to the life organism. When we speak of a virus mutating into another type of virus or adaptations to the original virus or germ, guess what, It is still just a virus or a germ. It did not evolve into a more complex and different animal/life/organism. So what evolution did we actually see in a laboratory? None! Black and white humans are mutations of the same species. So what?

Part of the problem is that evolutionary science can't even determine the definition of it's own words and confuse mutation with Darwinian evolution. Hell, evolutionary science has yet to determine what the word "Species" means? Even among themselves they can't get the meaning right on the words that they use and they call that evidence?

I think that it's all part of the Hoax to confuse people into believing in evolution. I think that you must have more faith to believe in a foundation-less theory of evolution than to believe in a Creator God. At least God has a foundation. The theory of evolution is a foundation-less religion! And it requires much faith and a closed mind to believe in it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 04_03.html
http://www.icr.org/article/14/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/r ... tics.shtml
http://www.discoverymedicine.com/R-Crai ... t-context/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... f_evolving
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/


Good luck.

[13] And all those Links are to mutations in a Laboratory! Not evolution. But they use the word generically in order to confuse the masses. If "Micro-evolution" occurs then so must "Macro-evolution." This is simply not true; No germ or virus whether it be E. Coli or some other germ or virus has ever evolved into a completely different creature such as a worm inside of a laboratory. This would be Macro-Evolution or true evolution and not just mutations. They still all remain only germs and viruses and nothing more. Only that the DNA has been switch around or certain genes turn on or off in the Genetic make up of the germs and viruses. And that is all.

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

Timminz wrote:

mejihn7779 wrote:

Check and Mate, atheists!

Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Viceroy63 wrote:EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

How do explain this experiment?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment

mejihn7779 wrote:

by the way, I would still like to know who created god, because you know, everything has a creator apparently.

jonesthecurl wrote:Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Jones; Why don't you prove to me that it is not and thus prove me a liar?

Those kinds of questions are designed to draw one away from the issues and not for discussing the issues.

To Discuss an issue you make an argument as I have just done in "Evolution Has Never Happened!" I pointed out the details and made claims. Show me the flaws in the argument and that is where we begin discussing this.

But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used by Darwinists to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter first. Shall we?

And incidentally; Again, you are making a false claim with the implication that I stated specifically that this specific drawing is what is being taught in text books. That statement came from an article, Is This a Fact?

The facts are that if you go to any museum you will find many such TYPE of drawings and photos such as these that Illustrate evolution from a conceptual artist rendering's point of View. This particular drawing was however made very popular from a National Geographic article titled, The Dawn of Man where a similar type drawing was shown.

This particular drawing may not be in any text book but similar art is.

Viceroy63 wrote:But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

Then show me this fossil evidence here in this forum thread. Because this whole thing is base on the fossil evidence. Show it here because no one has yet shown it.

Viceroy63 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

Then show me this fossil evidence here in this forum thread. Because this whole thing is base on the fossil evidence. Show it here because no one has yet shown it.

The only issue here is that you aren't willing to draw the same conclusion from the available fossil evidence that basically all working scientists have drawn. You won't be convinced unless scientists are able to demonstrate the link between every species in detail, and that level of rigor is not necessary to accept the basic premise. This is not a debate about the evidence, it is a debate about what it means to develop and test a scientific theory.

Viceroy63 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:But Please don't be like some that state, "Well, Micro-evolution does occur so Macro-evolution must also occur." I think that we all know by now that the misapplied meanings in words is a tactic that is used to show that evolution is real when it is not. Let's define words and get to the heart of the matter. Shall we?

The fact that "micro-evolution" does occur is not what is used to demonstrate that "macro-evolution" did occur. The fossil record proves that substantially enough. The fact that "micro-evolution" occurs is only used to remove any doubt that with enough generations, genetic changes large enough to fundamentally change the nature of a given species are possible. This is the mechanism that permitted "macro-evolution" to occur.

Then show me this fossil evidence here in this forum thread. Because this whole thing is base on the fossil evidence. Show it here because no one has yet shown it.

Evolution does not need fossils to justify it's validity. Fossils are just a bonus, not the big thing that the entire theory builds on like many creationists seem to think. It just so happens though that the fossil record does not contradict evolution, it does however strongly contradict creationism.

Viceroy63 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Jones; Why don't you prove to me that it is not and thus prove me a liar?

And incidentally; Again, you are making a false claim with the implication that I stated specifically that this specific drawing is what is being taught in text books. That statement came from an article, Is This a Fact?

The facts are that if you go to any museum you will find many such TYPE of drawings and photos such as these that Illustrate evolution from a conceptual artist rendering's point of View. This particular drawing was however made very popular from a National Geographic article titled, The Dawn of Man where a similar type drawing was shown.

This particular drawing may not be in any text book but similar art is.

I know this is not the original drawing.
In which museums and textbooks does the original to which you refer appear?


And are you seriously sugesting I go through every textbook to show the absence of this drawing? I'll do that when you prove that there are no textbooks with the words "Viceroy asks for the most stupid things" in.

Viceroy63 wrote:EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

You are right, that is not evolution, that is metamorphasis, or magic.

However, reptiles turned into feathered reptiles, and into flying reptiles and then into birds after millions of generations. Cows to whales is silly, and a worm is highly specialized, so the process is a long one. The germs evolved into more specialized germs, and into multicelled animals, that branched off millions of times, and one line definitely turned into a worm at some point, but at no point was a creature a germ one day, and a worm the next, the same way no person was black one day, and then white the next, except for MC of course.

As far as monkeys into men, you certainly have the wrong terminology. Humans more specifically evolved through the primate lineage, and each generation was just a little more evolved than the next, for millions of cycles. Our particular branch may even have been aquatic, which would explain the hair-loss, and with notable exceptions, intelligence grew again over millions of generations...some being more intelligent than others.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Still waiting for an answer on where they show the picture on your sig, Viceroy. Which museums? Which textbooks?

Jones; Why don't you prove to me that it is not and thus prove me a liar?

And incidentally; Again, you are making a false claim with the implication that I stated specifically that this specific drawing is what is being taught in text books. That statement came from an article, Is This a Fact?

The facts are that if you go to any museum you will find many such TYPE of drawings and photos such as these that Illustrate evolution from a conceptual artist rendering's point of View. This particular drawing was however made very popular from a National Geographic article titled, The Dawn of Man where a similar type drawing was shown.

This particular drawing may not be in any text book but similar art is.

I know this is not the original drawing.
In which museums and textbooks does the original to which you refer appear?


And are you seriously sugesting I go through every textbook to show the absence of this drawing? I'll do that when you prove that there are no textbooks with the words "Viceroy asks for the most stupid things" in.

That would actually be an educational phrase that should immediately be included in every textbook in the nation.

AAFitz wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:EVOLUTION HAS NEVER OCCURRED. NO SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL HAS EVER EVOLVED FROM ANOTHER SPECIES OR KIND OF ANIMAL. NO REPTILES TO BIRD, NO COWS INTO WHALES, NO GERMS INTO WORMS; AND NO MONKEYS INTO MEN.

You are right, that is not evolution, that is metamorphasis, or magic.

However, reptiles turned into feathered reptiles, and into flying reptiles and then into birds after millions of generations. Cows to whales is silly, and a worm is highly specialized, so the process is a long one. The germs evolved into more specialized germs, and into multicelled animals, that branched off millions of times, and one line definitely turned into a worm at some point, but at no point was a creature a germ one day, and a worm the next, the same way no person was black one day, and then white the next, except for MC of course.

As far as monkeys into men, you certainly have the wrong terminology. Humans more specifically evolved through the primate lineage, and each generation was just a little more evolved than the next, for millions of cycles. Our particular branch may even have been aquatic, which would explain the hair-loss, and with notable exceptions, intelligence grew again over millions of generations...some being more intelligent than others.

The point is, where is the evidence for that?

Are you saying that because we can't see the evidence of millions of years of evolution, that we should accept the theory as true anyway?

I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.