Where is your evidence creationists?

[Fastener]

If you do believe god makes organisms pop into existence then provide me with evidence.

There is no evidence that's why they need indoctrination to 'Convert' their children into being creationists.

The same goes for ALL religions, the lack of evidence causes ALL of them to use indoctrination to do the 'Converting'.

After indoctrination the 'Converted' sing the praises of their 'one and only God', it's a case of the blind leading the blind and it happens ALL over the world in ALL countries and ALL societies and they ALL end up with the 'one true God'.

How amazing is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet primitive populations that rely on sea food have nor morphed back to the ocean. A human mermaid would be good proof of evolution

A species that was half human and half fish would falsify evolution. You are aware of this, are you not?

Of course, we already have mammalian species that are partly aquatic and partly terrestrial such as seals and otters. There is your evidence.

The observed evidence is that evolution is a myth.

Such as?

There is no solid evidence for evolution as I have demonstrated many times.

Instead of going in circles, why don't you describe the evidence that you would accept? What genetic marker shared by multiple species would you accept as evidence that these species share a common ancestor? What features would a fossil need to evidence a transition between a modern species and a common ancestor with other species?

I think I have asked these questions quite a few times, and each time you duck them. It is becoming quite apparent that you will not accept any evidence, no matter how compelling it is.

Indeed evolution from a mouse deer to a whale is impossible . . .

No one is claiming that a mouse deer evolved into a whale. Perhaps you can address what scientists are actually saying instead of inventing stramen?

and this is demonstrated and observed in the dog that will never be bred to be as large as a horse because its ability to adapt is limited, yet bacteria morphed into an elephant and whale.

No one is claiming that a bacteria morphed into an elephant or a whale. No one is claiming that dogs are as big as horses. Why do you feel the need to put words in other people's mouths? Is it because you have to shield yourself from the evidence that supports what scientists are actually saying?

 

[Psudopod]

Yet primitive populations that rely on sea food have nor morphed back to the ocean. A human mermaid would be good proof of evolution

No, it would falsify evolution. And even primitive humans have a much greater influence on their environment than most species. Selective pressures are lower in humans than other animals because of this.

Not so. Some families will refuse to be moved from their home. You should tell them to swim and dive more so they can morph into mermaids and stay where they are.

If you understood evolution, you'd know that telling someone to do something more would have absolutely no effect on evolution.

A question that has nothing to do with anything

If you answered the question you might understand why populations overlap.

There is no solid evidence for evolution as I have demonstrated many times.

There is no evidence for evolution that you can see because you are looking for evidence of something other than evolution. If you think mermaids would be evidence of evolution, or that evolution involves morphing, or that telling someone to do something more will affect evolution, then you're not critising ToE, you demonstrating that you don't understand.

Indeed evolution from a mouse deer to a whale is impossible and this is demonstrated and observed in the dog that will never be bred to be as large as a horse because its ability to adapt is limited, yet bacteria morphed into an elephant and whale.

You haven't demonstrated this at all, you've asserted it. You do understand, for example that indohyus and modern whales live in very different environments, for example? Something like indohyus couldn't grow to the same scale as the modern whale because it couldn't support itself on land, but in the ocean, it's perfectly possible.

 

[Huram Abi]

How dare you compare me to a religious fanatic. My evidence and interpretations of data, nor any other creationist for that matter, could not possibly be worse that 150 years of falsifications eg knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA, Junk DNA

Except that it is.

 

[CabVet]

My DNA will change from the time I am born to old age. I will have viral infections that leave immunity signatures. I am not morphing into anything not human.

Just FYI, if something like you describe ever happened (morphing into something not human in one generation), that would be evidence against evolution.

 

[Astridhere]

No, it would falsify evolution. And even primitive humans have a much greater influence on their environment than most species. Selective pressures are lower in humans than other animals because of this.



If you understood evolution, you'd know that telling someone to do something more would have absolutely no effect on evolution.



If you answered the question you might understand why populations overlap.



There is no evidence for evolution that you can see because you are looking for evidence of something other than evolution. If you think mermaids would be evidence of evolution, or that evolution involves morphing, or that telling someone to do something more will affect evolution, then you're not critising ToE, you demonstrating that you don't understand.



You haven't demonstrated this at all, you've asserted it. You do understand, for example that indohyus and modern whales live in very different environments, for example? Something like indohyus couldn't grow to the same scale as the modern whale because it couldn't support itself on land, but in the ocean, it's perfectly possible.
The point is that evolutionists have no clue for sure past speculation. If it looks like a deer, or anything else around today, could it just simply be an ancestor of that? NO, because you lot need intermediates. My interpretation is just as good as any flavour of the month evos produce

Nothing I produce could be worse than what you produce nor are the interpretations of data I offer. I do not need rhemes of mumbo jumbo. I am a creationist and do not need all the mumbo you evos have to have to demonstrate how, when, where or why "it all evolved". and...That is still all up for grabs.

 

[selfinflikted]

How long are you guys going to continue talking right past each other? I have been reading this thread since it's inception and ... words just can't describe.

 

[Astridhere]

You ignore evidence that supports positions contrary to your religious belief because it's contrary to your religious belief, you also blindly accept anything that agrees with your religious belief simply because it supports it - this kind of confirmation bias is vital to religious fanticism.

What religious beliefs would that be. Let's see. I have said nothing about religious beliefs in my citations for much of my evidence, including Dawkins. You have mentioned religion like the fanatic Dawkins. I disbeliever yet always wanting to bring religion into a scientific refute.

This "looser" is more of an academic than you could ever hope to become. Especially whilst you cling to archaic mythology.

Any one of these researchers that backed knucklewalking ancestry 10 years ago are loosers, as are the ones that sprooked about junk DNA, or the dead LUCA. They are all loosers really but don't get fired.

I don't give a donkey's what you think.

Good

.

and still none of the biased mess and contradiction you provide is any better than mine.

This thread is an evolutionary comical spoof demonstrating desperation and denial. Evos deny they are the fanatics, especially atheists, wasting their time on threads or forums like this.