dear david accepting isnt verifying[proving]

my point being intelligence dosnt happen by chance[if EVEN bacteria [and as previously posted by me ] amaeba have 'thought', abitlty to recieve and comunicate, have likes and dislikes ,then logic clearly preceeded their SINGLE cellular creation.

this posting becan with a call for naming names

[if it is a science it has to meet science proofs[faulsifiability ,the main premise that if disproven disproves the theory[as was used to rebut creationists in a law court[not a science lab]or by peer revieuw of facts but by a deemed faulsifiable [ie a legal manouver]

a science is replicatable using the science the theory revealed[evolution is not a science]courts arnt about testing the facts in totality[it judges ONLY the facts [or debate ;interpritation ]of the facts presented]

saying the matter is been judged
still hasnt proven it to be science
only science can prove it is science
courts arnt scientific [they have rules for what evidence is acceptable and what isnt ,if its not first hand witness its not evidence ,thus if your not darwin you cant testify]

lest we forget satan is a lawyer

and evolution theory fails[as anyone being honest will admit] it fails by its own measure
#because it is a theory [a theology] [or a philosophy] but NOT A SCIENCE

if you claim it is
EVOLVE somthing

or explain what evolved into what
[the how what where when theory]
science does not recognise'IF'

now see how the media spin on the trial is offered as 'proof'?
court facts arnt faulsifiable

[science must be, or it aint science]

Dear oug,

Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact shown by the fossil record of species coming into being, disappearing and being replaced by other species. It is a fact as shown by experiments with fruit flies and bacteria evolving new species as they develop resistence to antibiotics. The only theory involved is the mechanisms by which evolution takes place.

I used the word, accept, rather than proven because evolution exists. You may doubt that something that exists is real. That is your problem.

Under one gog said:
“lest we forget Satan is a lawyer”
Really....where did you get that one from LOL?

Under one god said:
“and evolution theory fails[as anyone being honest will admit] it fails by its own measure
#because it is a theory [a theology] [or a philosophy] but NOT A SCIENCE”

Creation scientists do not accept falsification; their fundamental belief in the truth of Genesis is fixed, non-negotiable, and unshakable. The Bible says it; they believe it; case closed. They refuse to consider that the Bible might be proven false. The truth of the Bible is one of their basic assumptions. Since it lacks the principle of falsification, creation science is not generally considered a form of science, except by some conservative Christians. What arouses the anger of scientists (about intelligent design believers) is their idea that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis. Scientists also reject creation science as a part of science, because they generally regard its basic conclusions to be wrong, having been proven false by the available evidence.

Based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, creation scientists have concluded that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years. They also totally believe the existing species of animals developed from a smaller number of "kinds" which first appeared, fully formed, during creation week. They’re convinced that humans were part of a separate creation, separate from that of animals. Scientists have generally rejected all of these beliefs due to the monumental body of evidence that disputes these beliefs.
.
So, in conclusion, evolution is based on a huge body of evidence which is being diligently uncovered every day by inquisitive humans.

Creationism is based on a book written 2000 years ago.

Leaving aside the conspiracy theories that you continually give links to, tell me if you can, honestly, in your own words, how god, in your view got all the species into being – and cite some evidence, if possible LOL. Given that your belief includes unsubstantiated miracles and other flawed ideas, why would you dispute science which is based on evidence?

dear trickerdee
quote>>..Based on a literal interpretation of Genesis,creation scientists have concluded that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years...>>

please point out[in the book]WHERE?
its an evolutionists strawman[just like flat earth is INFURED by every eye shall see him] its a destraction

HOW DOES THIS RELATE to your explaining evolution?

>>..They also totally believe the existing species of animals developed from a smaller number of "kinds" which first appeared, fully formed, during creation week..>>

again with the time delusion
god is free of time[eternal] omnipresent]

one GOD'creation week'= billions of OUR years

..>> They’re convinced that humans were part of a separate creation, separate from that of animals...<<

god may well have used evolution
MY POINT BEING
science cant proove nor disprove how he did it

yes we have a theory[an evolving theory]

that 'naTURAL SELECTION
[NEEDING A 'NATURAL SELECTOR] DID IT 'NATURALLY ,but as yet MAN HASNT REPLICATED let alone explained it via science it cant be science only a theory

breed stasis is a confirmed fact

no Scientist has reported a change of species] bacyeria are still bacteia, fruitflies are still fruit flies sheep breed sheep]

this is a base fact
science has not evolved via its theory into science faulsifyable fact

those who have '
>>..generally rejected all of these beliefs due to the monumental body of evidence that disputes these beliefs...>>
ARE NOT ABLE TO PRESENT THE SCI-ENCE PROOF of this SO CALLED large body of evidence? here and now

what evolved into what
when/how/what #/where
where is this faulsifyable evolution
[into a NEW species?]

ie name names evolutionists

put up the proof that the 60 macro mutations [difference between us and ape REALLY happend[THAT it can be via science replicated]

randon chance isnt science
fossils arnt science
look at how little fossil underlies the deception
prove ya theory

knocking creation theory dosnt prove evolution
only REAL faULSIFYABLE SCIENCE can confirm if it is a science or a theory or a fraud

the facts maaaaaam
just the F-ACTS
.

oug wrote:

"no Scientist has reported a change of species] bacyeria are still bacteia, fruitflies are still fruit flies sheep breed sheep]"

It is obvious from that remark that you don't know what the word, species, means. There are many species of both fruit flies and bacteria and new species of both have been observed

david [im asking the questions
your not explaining

here is an ape
[it has many breeds of apes in its species genome]
are you claiming it evolved into a HUH?man?
are we the same species?same breed? same genome?

ITS your division[read name] YOU KNOW sheep breed breeds of sheep[plus i put up a link earlier when i got another questioning about my use of the term]

PLEASE NOTE
pointing out error [sans correction ]is nit picking [but ITS NOT REPLY] please STATE what new EVOLUTION evolved into a type NOT LIKE ITS PARENTS?

how hard is it to explain the science?
it is clear no one can

read the debate about how those who cant explain distract, with definitions YET FAIL to explain the terms[and fail to explain their theory]

please be more accurate in your use of terms
explain what the term your using means

explain your theory
not complain my ignoRANTS

evolve something
explain something
replicate [dont speculate]
if science VALIDATE

the lack of explanation is clear[its easier to complain or call out a lie[if species is proven a lie]
than explain THE lie][your acusation neatly covers over doing

stop the reprooff
present your PROOF