please present the proof EbulGery.... Have you read any of Darwin's books or do you want to accept the theory because it fits a world view?

You have opinions on a theory. science has been hijacked by a theory.
I can go to any university and get a different thesis(theory) from all the student in the
physics department. A theory must align with facts. The british Library has scanned thousands of theories that languish in obscurity.

Darwinism - ism : it's a philosophy of life. it's been refuted by science in the last twenty years, but the old guard don't like to see their bread and butter go. It supports a world view of greed. Survival of the fittest. There are vested interests in the lie.
It lets men see other humans as animals. It's a degradation of human worth.

science always revises and drops spurious theories for better ones. what fits in 1750, doesn't fit in 1850, what fits in 1850(Darwin) doesn't fit in 2016. DNA refutes Darwin. There is no junk in DNA. Looking at old bones and imagining the creature without the soft tissues is guesswork. missing transitional fossils across the board? 150 years to find them seems enough time? Lots of students digging for their professors in summer?

DOGMA isn't just in religion.

no instance of evolution happening now? Richard Dawkins admits that evolution has never been seen happening in real life. It's a magic trick that can't be seen maybe... just happens behind a curtain.

zorrostrikes 12 Sep 16 16:52 
DStyle - i don't believe in the christian faith because of that bit in the bible that says Jesus had a horse's tail and mushrooms for hands.

that's bizarre I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the Bible - It's a big book maybe I missed it? I tried to google it to find it? To see the context? Not there? Is this just making stuff up like Dawkins and the Chocolate pot, Leprecauns and fairies.


i saw it on a youtube video.

ergo it must be correct.

i don't really need to read the bible to know whether that bit is actually in there or not because i saw it on the internet so IT MUST BE TRUE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTaPIK7maY&index=5&list=PLwxJpQPxRbgHJzNxY0TMXRvjg5N07Q1pZ

Biologist Exposes Lie of "Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution" - Part 1 (5 minutes ladies)

the moth story debunked.
faking of evidence? how scientific.

-------------------

David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&list=PLwxJpQPxRbgHJzNxY0TMXRvjg5N07Q1pZ&index=4

comments show he has allegiances to a big corporation, but is he gonna get a job with the other side if he says they are talking crap.

Cambrian Explosion: bigger problem for Darwinism than ever

Suddenly.... life has new meaning to mee.... there's beauty up above....

All of a sudden lots of species appeared, without any ancestors, fully formed with fancy underpants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USBI0GSSOA

the more I dig into Darwinism.... the less I find? why is that.

BIOCHEMIST ADMITS EVOLUTION IS A LIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdi3TGd717U

www.aquaticcommunity.com/cichlid/evolution.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid

Here is a good example of evolution Zorro
Cichlid fish in African Lakes

There is one example of evolution in action now

SUPERBUGS

a strain of bacteria that has become resistant to antibiotic drugs.

If we consider evolution to be merely selective breeding then it demonstrably exists. Ask any animal breeder. Selective breeding can be either deliberate or random.

Darwin, Wallace, et al wrote of natural selection, by which they meant some creatures that were naturally selected at random would have increased fitness (to breed) and therefore would likely have more offspring with the same traits.

It's the likelihood of producing offspring that's important, not physical fitness.

I can be a 90 lb weakling, and over five years bulk up and do
hours in the gym and end up looking like Swarzennegar

the two extremes look markedly different.

put the two in amber and you've got evolution? nope.

the DNA is the same.

These bugs have evolved Zorro...they are far tougher to kill. That is nothing to do with your own

anti bodies.

You have a point Gallivanter.

Greyhounds do not exist naturally in the wild, neither do Huskies or lots of other breeds of dogs.
Thy have been bred by us. That is an example of evolution controlled by us, instead of nature.

Mermaids Zorro..that is more a fish to a women
Seriously all life came from the sea.

We cannot do weight training for our DNA zorro.....Arnie will still have the same DNA he was born with.

While not agreeing with Zorro's "it was God what done it" stance it does appear that Standard Evolutionary Theory and it's offspring is coming under pressure.

Reasoned arguments from Casey Luskin: The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution. It's quite lengthy and most of it is far too technical for me but still an interesting read.

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

most people who believe in Darwinism... have never read or investigated it.

the man on the street takes it on faith or on it's reputation. Like buying a branded tee-shirt.

a life unexamined isn't a life.

You have a point Charlie, and Zorro, perhaps we do need to look at evolution more closely.

Are we sure what is going on is going on.

Originally life only existed in the sea, then it came on to land, would it not have problems breathing?

Two arguments one supporting evolutionary theory and one outlining problems: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

thanks for the ammo.. Dstyle - http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Chemical Evolution is Dead in the Water

Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a "primordial soup," or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).

Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored."14 In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water.

what a christian with a brain?

(that was for zorro charlie)

this primordial pool theory needs an atmosphere with no oxygen to start, then once it starts it needs an atmosphere with oxygen?

The Miller-Urey experiment was 60 years ago.

It's like talking about the problems with noxious gas emissions of cars, and only using cars from the 50s as your evidence.

I've posted a link to the most current research earlier in this thread from Sutherland's lab at the MRC Molecular Biology lab at Cambridge.

but what's the fecking point.