Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Hobbyist Dylan88/Male/Canada Recent Activity
Deviant for 1 Year
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 48 Deviations 661 Comments 4,191 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

No Dromaeosaur In Particular by leptoceratops No Dromaeosaur In Particular :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 12 6 77th Montgomery's Highlanders (Britain 7yw ) by leptoceratops 77th Montgomery's Highlanders (Britain 7yw ) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 4 0 Hort Frei Infanterie NCO (Prussia 7 years war) by leptoceratops Hort Frei Infanterie NCO (Prussia 7 years war) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 4 0 1st Braganca Infantry (Portugal 7 years war) by leptoceratops 1st Braganca Infantry (Portugal 7 years war) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 4 0 Sciurumimus by leptoceratops Sciurumimus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 12 2 Pterodactyls Kochi by leptoceratops Pterodactyls Kochi :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 15 2 Majungasaurus  by leptoceratops Majungasaurus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 26 13 Sordes pilosus by leptoceratops Sordes pilosus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 16 6 Smilodon fatalis  by leptoceratops Smilodon fatalis :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 12 2 moreexperimentingwithdigitalart(nemicolopterus) by leptoceratops moreexperimentingwithdigitalart(nemicolopterus) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 3 SENATVS POPVLVS QUE ROMANVS by leptoceratops SENATVS POPVLVS QUE ROMANVS :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 3 0 Insanity by leptoceratops Insanity :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 14 6 Napping Carno couple, featuring annoying shadow! by leptoceratops Napping Carno couple, featuring annoying shadow! :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 10 3 An ankylosaurid by leptoceratops An ankylosaurid :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 6 20 Dodo by leptoceratops Dodo :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 9 7 My favourite dinosaur by leptoceratops My favourite dinosaur :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 4

Favourites

Gray morning Junco by natureguy Gray morning Junco :iconnatureguy:natureguy 140 20 Dinovember Day 4 - Sand (reupload) by Dinosaurzzzz Dinovember Day 4 - Sand (reupload) :icondinosaurzzzz:Dinosaurzzzz 11 0 Dinovember Day 3 - Fast (reupload) by Dinosaurzzzz Dinovember Day 3 - Fast (reupload) :icondinosaurzzzz:Dinosaurzzzz 10 0 Dinovember Day 6 - Dive (reupload) by Dinosaurzzzz Dinovember Day 6 - Dive (reupload) :icondinosaurzzzz:Dinosaurzzzz 9 0 Dinovember Day 10 - Kill (reupload) by Dinosaurzzzz Dinovember Day 10 - Kill (reupload) :icondinosaurzzzz:Dinosaurzzzz 12 0 Dinovember Day 18 - Shore (reupload) by Dinosaurzzzz Dinovember Day 18 - Shore (reupload) :icondinosaurzzzz:Dinosaurzzzz 14 0 Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (BHI 3033) by Franoys Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (BHI 3033) :iconfranoys:Franoys 74 41 Halszkaraptor by Hyrotrioskjan Halszkaraptor :iconhyrotrioskjan:Hyrotrioskjan 463 42 Allkaruen koi by Kana-hebi Allkaruen koi :iconkana-hebi:Kana-hebi 137 3 A Horse by OrlopRat A Horse :iconorloprat:OrlopRat 5 0 Hey there! by FeatherNerd Hey there! :iconfeathernerd:FeatherNerd 67 23 Big Rice volume 3: The continental dipper by Kutchicetus-Minimus Big Rice volume 3: The continental dipper :iconkutchicetus-minimus:Kutchicetus-Minimus 65 23 First Steps Towards Life Onto Dry Land by RhysDylan01 First Steps Towards Life Onto Dry Land :iconrhysdylan01:RhysDylan01 26 13 Mushrooms of November by natureguy Mushrooms of November :iconnatureguy:natureguy 22 5 Day break Pileated Woodpecker 1 by natureguy Day break Pileated Woodpecker 1 :iconnatureguy:natureguy 45 13 And away she goes by natureguy And away she goes :iconnatureguy:natureguy 38 4

Groups

Activity


  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
deeply sorry for the inactivity (audience: who are you?)

The offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl"

if by "going ape" you mean acknowledging that the Australopithecus afarensis specimen AL 288-1 (Lucy/Dinkinesh) is a bipedal hominid then yes we are "going ape"?

(there is no such word as evolutionist by the way)

The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago

and this is? (Side note: further down I realized He was taking about DIK-1/1 (Selam)

By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments.

Yes and so are you, but I don't see how having few head fragments remaining is "unique" many fossils in this area of the word from this time period are poorly preserved compared to some.

This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal).

Yes the most interesting part of the specimen is its pelvis which I have addressed in a previous entry. and when multiple highly similar bones are in the same layer and and very close in proximity and show now signs of being disturbed then assuming otherwise would be daft.

It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape.

Saying "It's not a human it's an ape" is like saying "That's not a car its a Toyota".

The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.

This is very deceptive, you ignore the variation in ape skull shapes (including your own) and that we know for a fact that this is an Australopithecus afanesis and even without the skull it is undeniably so. but he ignores this because that would cast quite a bit of shade on his already shaky argument.

Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees."

(Du na na na na na na na, Na na na na na na na na na Ape Girl!) A. afarensis was semi-arboreal and had many nonhuman traits, hence Australopithecus afarensis and not Homo afarensis, also it it funny how you only point out the traits that support your argument and nothing else, because 'science can be fully trusted, until it contradicts my preconceived beliefs that is.'

So, it looks like an ape, it has a head like an ape, it has arms like an ape, it has shoulder blades like an ape - It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.
Related image
Yes  they are.

The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.


I really don't get this game of Chinese whispers that you creationists are playing with the whole "Nebraska man" thing, literally everyone and their parrot has talked about this (come to think of it I might have in a previous entry) so I won't waste my time or yours.

'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia - BBC News - September 21, 2006
"The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso, and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died."
Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce.

Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said. 
"In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. [The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from."

The news is literally the worst source of information you could go to but in this case ok.

Climbing Ability
"This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet. There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape.

This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the 'Lucy' species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just 'evolutionary baggage'."

and?

Evolution is in trouble. The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."

No it doesn't, none of this contradicts anything we already know, and also you are completely misrepresenting Prof.Gould's views a better quote would be:


 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. 
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]"

(the words in square brackets were added after) this is a criticism of gradualism, and a very valid criticism of what most now consider an outdated view. tweaking to already evidenced ideas will always happen as we learn more that is how learning works.

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't.

Yes it does, you know what it doesn't support, your magic sky-daddy Abracadabra'ing everything into existence all at once.

Related image
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
The offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

Okay children take your seats.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong

Your infantile attempt at a statement is not only
 fallacious in regards to its factually but it is also grammatically incorrect.

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof.

You're a dumb bastard and I'm going to set your straw men on fire.

but I digress, no one has ever claimed that the existence of individual species in and of itself is proof of evolution the fact that all life can be classified according to there relatedness to each other in such an obvious manner (in most cases) that even without the help of DNA analysis you can classify organisms based on relatedness to a degree that would be impossible without common descent and that in the majority cases DNA confirms what can be observed from in-depth physiological categorization and even in the few cases wear this is not the case they are still in every case related to another group similar to themselves, that is why 
phylogenetics in my opinion is one of the strongest cases for evolution. Your second sentence describes only your own statement.

Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes.

see above.

Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.

make believe creatures really, a creationist, telling me I believe in make believe creatures, but anyway the topic of how we know our paleontological finds are authentic is a very large topic (I think by now I have more than a right to say that) but if you are curious about the subject check out my "dinosaurs aren't real" series, or some scientific papers, or a book, maybe like a Wikipedia article or something, this shit isn't hard to find.

This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. (...)

Image result for evolutionary history of elephantImage result for evolutionary history of giraffes
Related image

The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

No, literally every biological science supports evolution.


Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey.

Yes and so are you, maybe if you wrenched you head from your intestinal tract once in a while you would notice that

A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct.

Yes and? What does it being extinct have o do with its relation to humans?

It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people. 

Actually your big toe is slightly separate from the rest of your toes, it has the largest gap between its neighbor and it is also capable of the most independent movement. We are the most terrestrial extant primate, this is consistent with the human foot on the diagram below the two other most terrestrial primates in the diagram below are gorillas and baboons, though not as terrestrial as ourselves they do spend a lot of their time on the ground, Orangutan and Lemur are the most arboreal of the primates represented here, this is all consistent with the diagram but observation of all of these obviously show common ancestry. it should also be said that as terrestrial animals Australopithecines have feet very unlike arboreal and semi-arboreal (like chimps) primates. and very similar to other terrestrial primates like ourselves

Related imageImage result for australopithecus footprintsImage result for australopithecus footprints

you also ignore all of the other traits we share with Australopithecines such as being bipedal, having characteristic simian Auricles, downward facing nostrils, highly reduced tails, a set of two pectoral mammaries, forward facing eyes...(I think I need not go on).

A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found.

It does and it has, also every species both extinct and extant is transitional, that is why I hate the term "missing link" and I have discuses this in grater detail in previous entries.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.

If by this you mean that he predicted if he was write extinct animals would be found with traits from both one group of similar animals and another (which he did) than by never you mean 1861, Darwin was alive at the time of this discovery and knew he was write about the dinosaur bird connection. it took many others a bit longer, and clearly some are still not on the same page.
Image result for London Specimen

Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

Literally all of that was nonsense.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species.

(the two paragraphs were to similar to warrant independent response).

All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different.

Except that they are, it's just your to slo- I mean It's to slow to normally be obvious.

The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Image result for cheetahImage result for cheetah color morphs
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
The offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

How many creationists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One to screw in the bulb and another to build a theme park about how light bulbs disprove evolution.

(Boo, you suck!)





The Indoctrination System Called "Education"

Which you clearly escaped.

The educational system teaches children not to think. Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented.

You can question evolution all you want, you can question anything NVLLIVS IN VERBA and all that, the problem Is when you waste your teachers time asking question after question that was answered in a previous century in a smug tone like 150 plus years of scrutiny by the worlds best and brightest is going to be out done by your punk-ass questions.

If you come out of school as a thoughtless robot then you missed the point (as far to many do).

A forth-grade elementary school class was observed at the park playing a three-legged race game, where adjacent legs of the two kids were placed into a bag. The kids must cooperate with each step in order to run. The kids thought it was great fun. The teacher told them they were being trained to cooperate.

And? are not three-legged races pretty much ubiquitous among young children and carnival-goers and have been for at least the past 60 plus years, how is this news?

Actually, it was brainwashing kids into conforming to a system in which they are not allowed to have individual thoughts or opinions. They must become a "team player" and submit to peer pressure. Communist countries have used this same brainwashing technique for decades.

Or, or, and this is just a thought, they're preparing there students to work as a team because at pretty much every job they ever have ever they will have to work with other people in a harmonious fashion?

The brainwashing of school children continues by teaching them there is no absolute right or wrong, and the teacher is absolutely positive about it.

What the fuck kind of school did you go to, most schools enforce a code of conduct, but I know that's not what you mean, you wan't schools to enforce biblical law but let me tell you, all morality is subjective, but if we enforce biblical law there will be no morality at all.

Whatever the children think is right for them is OK. That is of course until they question evolution. They are then told they are wrong. This brainwashing results in children who are unable to think logically, scientifically, and accurately. (...)

See above mother fucker.

[Darwinian Evolution cannot be observed and replicated in order to be scientifically validated and also there is not one single known case of a change of kinds]:

it can be observed and replicated and there are many very obvious examples of change you just like ignoring them or changing the goal posts (which ever is more convenient).




Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


I normally don't do two at once but he is in my house now.

The body and soul of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.

I feel like this is at least my third time addressing this, not survival of fittest, survival of well enough adapted.

Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

The first part is obvious, but as for the second. No, no one calls them that, and a link between a new species and an old species is some what redundant. Here I will give you some members of the same genus (Homo) with varying levels of relatedness and most of which are capable of successful interbreeding.

 Image result for homo sapiens skullImage result for homo erectus skullImage result for Homo sapiens idaltu
 H. sapiens sapiens                 H. erectus ssp.                                   H. sapiens idaltu

Related image 
  H. sapiens ssp.                      H. neanderthalensis (could arguably be re classified as H. sapiens neanderthalensis)

the most basal member of the genus Homo represented here is H. erectus and it also happens to be ancestral to the other presented examples. all the examples here have their own taxonomic name, sort of. Though love Biological Taxonomy and its nomenclature, its fundamental flaw is that there is no point at which things can be put into one neat group or other and the decisions made about the status of a specimen can be arbitrary to a certain extent, this is because a population changes in slow gradations and one population can become to or in some cases vice versa. every species is transitional, if you think Chuck thought different then you clearly haven't even read the first chapter of any of his works.

One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly.

Are you touched, did your mother drop you as a baby! WINGS ARE ARMS DUMBASS.



Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.

the feathered arms of dromaeosaurs (and other Pennaraptors) where used for steering whilst running as well as wing asisted incline running and insulating chicks.


Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection.

Related image

According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

Ok, so you just come hear and pull this bullshit out of your ass and expect this to be treated as a valid argument

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed.

NO! WHAT? NO ONE EVER SAID THAT EVER.

Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection.

Many dinosaurs have hollow bones, it increases speed while maintaining structural stability at larger sizes (to a point).

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example.

This should be good.

We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times.

Image result for snakehead fish on landImage result for mudskipperImage result for tiktaalikImage result for lungfish


Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story.

this is almost valid criticism of Lamarckian inheritance, not natural selection but, you don't know that, you have no idea what your taking about at all you didn't even do a google search.

The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water.

Image result for lungfish lungs



One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard.

you literally don't know anything, I knew more about this subject when I was four years old.

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

Marasuchus.JPGImage result for LagerpetidaeImage result for Silesaurus
Image result for Eoraptor
You got me there I guess.

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach.


you could have picked a better example of a long necked sauropod but whatever, The main advantage of sauropod neck length is it can feed over a large area without moving the rest of its body, up and down, side to side the giraffe comparison that many people make is superficial at best for most sauropods as their feeding strategies are completely different, there are however some top feeding sauropods (#NOTALLSAUROPODS) Like the aptly named Giraffatitan, but for most sauropod feeding stratagies an elephant would probably be a better comparison

One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie.

This never happend, ever.

The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection.

First of no, secondly if your arguing that your god creates animals that are bad at living in their environment, he is either a sadist or retarded

Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical logic of an evolutionist.

Related image

  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
the offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible


here we go again.

Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

Erasmus Darwin (aforementioned grandfather of Chuck D.) did not create the theory of evolution, he did however believe in a sort of evolution (not uncommon at the time among the learned folk) and we know this because of a poem of his that is the second part of a set of two in a book he got published in 1791 called The Botanic Garden. It seems that he believed in decent with modification and common decent (at least to a degree). It should also be noted that Charles never met his grandfather, he died about 7 years before he was born.

(Side note: Even if he got his hypothesis from a fever dream, it would have no effect on its validity, so long as its validity could be proven, as is the case).

Charles Darwin likely knew about his grandfathers ideas at an early age and certainly saw that they were self evident in the many Plants he grew up around, It seem the love of all things botanical was an inherited trait seeing as his grandfather formed The 
Lichfield Botanical Society, both his parents were avid gardeners, and he likes to go on about flowers for large sections of On the Origin of Species (which I have actually read unlike someone).

His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.

Unfortunately it would take to much time to site almost every paper from every field even slightly pertaining to biology so I'll try to give you an example with words at your reading level:
Image result for natural selection
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.

If this were the end of the 19th century you might have a leg to stand on. unfortunatly It would take to long to to explain the current model for abiogenisis but I will link a rather enlightening study on the subject as well as leave you its abstract:

"A minimal cell can be thought of as comprising informational, compartment-forming and metabolic subsystems. To imagine the abiotic assembly of such an overall system, however, places great demands on hypothetical prebiotic chemistry. The perceived differences and incompatibilities between these subsystems have led to the widely held assumption that one or other subsystem must have preceded the others. Here we experimentally investigate the validity of this assumption by examining the assembly of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of ​hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use ​hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling."

www.researchgate.net/publicati…

Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

no scientific support at all, well except for... well... literally all research pertaining to biology in any way shape or form, publish within the last century and a half.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

The example is usually Hamlet and chimps if memory serves but same shit really, also its not nonsense, mostly, in reality chimps given a typewriter usually get destructive after a while and when they do type they have a tendency for repetitiveness in regard to letter choice, but the premise of randomly typing letters will eventually create something you recognize is a mathematical inevitability, and If you ad selective pressures it quickens the process, for the sake of simplicity lets say you have many five letter sequences and that are capable of creating offspring, and that the offspring are susceptible to mutation, and that  there is selective pressure to create patterns most resembling my first name (folowing one liniage to save time):

                                                                         GHBCN
                                                                              ↓
                                                   [GHBZW] [GHBQN] [DHBAE] [HHBCN]
                                                         X            ↓             ↓            ↓
                                                                      ...            ↓           ... 
                                                           [DKWAE] [NHBVE] [DHBQZ] [DYBAQ]
                                                                 ↓            X            ↓            ↓
                                                                ...                        ...            ↓
                                                                               [DABQW] [DYBZX] [DYXAM] [DYQAN]
                                                                                    X             ↓            ↓             ↓
                                                                                                  ...           ...            ↓
                                                                                                     [DYQEX] [GYQAN] [DYXAN] [DYLAN]
                                                                                                          X            ↓            ↓            ↓
                                                                                                                       ...          ...            ↓
                                                                                                                          (this is simplified for the sake                                                                                                                           of time if it wasn't obvious)

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

sight your sources. also seeing as their is a 1:26 chance of getting the correct answer, that is 3.7037% and your chances of being struck by lightning are about 1:3,000 that is 0.0333%. I guess being struck by lightning must be impossible. also you don't take into account selective pressure.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)

what are the chances that I would wake up this morning alive, and that I had eggs and bacon this morning, and that I watched YouTube afterward, and that I skipped lunch, and that I went swimming, and that I swore at some annoying teen ruffians, and that I got some sumol and a cookie at the bakery, and that I wrote this review.

well it is so improbable it must not have happened... if you can't see the logical fallacy than their is no hope for you.
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
the offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

Horse feathers, you wouldn't know a challenge if it [Expunged] on your face.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. 

    I don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about, A Physical law is a theoretical statement inferred from observations and must be: True (obviously), Universal, Simple (as possible), Absolute, Stable, and Omnipotent. A theory (of the scientific sort) has a much simpler definition, (yet some how you people grasp the one but not the other) A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of reality that has survived all tests and educated scrutiny, these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive either, hence 
Newton's law of universal gravitation is the basis for gravitational Theory.

(side note: Newtons law of universal gravitation has been superseded by the Theory of General Relativity, though the former is still a capable metric for most practical purposes.)

    Evolution is "Just a theory" In that it is proven to be correct by every field of science relating to it and has a century and a half of researchers much more intelligent then yourself trying to find problems with the theory, and though there have been no real major changes since its conception, when a problem occurs the theory is corrected to fit reality. Though their is much we don't know at this point it is impossible for the Theory of evolution to be anything but correct, in order for it to be false basically every branch of biological, paleontological, and geological science (though there is much overlap between these fields) would have to be completely different then they are.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

This is a correct statement, it only took you 309 characters. I predict it may be one of very few.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

yes you can breed for a desired trait as you said before, however "survival of the fittest" is a charming phrase, not a theory it is in reference to natural selection an observable fact and one of the key principles the theory of evolution is based upon. Though it is not a very good summary of natural selection, a better statement would be; Survival of the just good enough for just long enough in relation to circumstance, but that's not as catchy.

also their is no such thing as an "Evolutionist", just as there are no Gravitationalists or Helocentrists.



"... When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

finish your quote your own damn self.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

if you did bread a litter of kittens from a pair of dogs The theory of evolution would be completely shattered. also there is no such thing as "the DNA limit" you pulled that out of your ass.

Let me explain to you evolution, when you have a population of, for the sake of argument parrots.

And these parrots are somehow separated by some natural barrier, lets say you both lived in the same forest until one day your local area became much more arid over time until it over many centuries became desert scrub-land and your population of parrots has changed along with the environment slowly becoming more comfortable on the ground and in short shrubbery, they have also slowly changed there diet so they may take advantage of the most available food. after many hundreds of generations both populations are distinct from their ancestral form, they are not only morphologicaly distinct but also unable to breed successfully with each other, thus two species are born.

File:Westerngroundparrotsing.jpg

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. 

Try googling  speciation

In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

if by "left hand proteins" you are referring to Chirality, you would be wrong we can synthesize "left" chemicals like for example the amino acid Alanine (if you can make sense of chemistry good on you).


Though when they say left and right they mean that they are mirror images of each other not that they actually make write and left handed parts of things, only an idiot who never did so much as a google search would think that... Oh yeah!

Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

that is ironic coming from a creationist.


If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

First of all Inuits (as they generally prefer to be called) do not need to evolve a thick fur coat because they wear thick fur coats so there is no selective pressure for fur. as far as silver reflective skin there are limits to our natural pigmentation, as well as their being easier solutions then having a dermis made of tin foil. Also it does make sense that people in hot climates have dark skin because melanin acts like an natural shield against UV radiation, whereas in northern climates light skin allows you to absorb more sun light in an environment where there is less so that you don't become vitamin D deficient. Exactly what natural selection would predict you sniveling little [Expunged]

If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.

See above.

Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle.

So you acknowledge that your original point is known to be false, Interesting. The reason Inuits have moderately darker skin is because they get their vitamin D from their diet (rich in fish and the fat of marine mammals (high in vitamin D).

Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.

See above... again.

Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Yes it can, the most common way this is done is when a gene in a new lifeforms DNA is duplicated, these new genes often mutate until they become completely different from the original and sometimes preform different functions.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas.

Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my! But anyway fur has uses other than warmth such as keeping the sun of the skin which in hot climates is more important than how much heat the fur itself generates it also gets cold at night in most places like these, fur also acts a shield from parasites (to an extent), also most animals closer to the equator have shorter fur than animals closer to the poles. also snow leopards have much thicker fur than African leopards.

The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

ARE YOU INSANE! NOT ONLY DID YOU CONTRADICT YOUR PREVIOUS POINT BUT YOUR SECOND SENTENCE IS THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL SELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

this is true of captive cheetahs which have very low genetic diversity due to inbreeding, and thus have a higher chance of disease, but wild cheetahs have higher genetic diversity than captive cheetahs and don't have particularly high levels of genetic disease but they do have abnormally low levels of genetic diversity probably do to genetic bottle-necking at the end of the last ice-age (though it technically didn't end but...) and even so they are not Like "Identical twins" there is still diversity.
Image result for cheetah
Not twins.



Thus ends part one.
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
deeply sorry for the inactivity (audience: who are you?)

The offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl"

if by "going ape" you mean acknowledging that the Australopithecus afarensis specimen AL 288-1 (Lucy/Dinkinesh) is a bipedal hominid then yes we are "going ape"?

(there is no such word as evolutionist by the way)

The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago

and this is? (Side note: further down I realized He was taking about DIK-1/1 (Selam)

By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments.

Yes and so are you, but I don't see how having few head fragments remaining is "unique" many fossils in this area of the word from this time period are poorly preserved compared to some.

This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal).

Yes the most interesting part of the specimen is its pelvis which I have addressed in a previous entry. and when multiple highly similar bones are in the same layer and and very close in proximity and show now signs of being disturbed then assuming otherwise would be daft.

It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape.

Saying "It's not a human it's an ape" is like saying "That's not a car its a Toyota".

The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.

This is very deceptive, you ignore the variation in ape skull shapes (including your own) and that we know for a fact that this is an Australopithecus afanesis and even without the skull it is undeniably so. but he ignores this because that would cast quite a bit of shade on his already shaky argument.

Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees."

(Du na na na na na na na, Na na na na na na na na na Ape Girl!) A. afarensis was semi-arboreal and had many nonhuman traits, hence Australopithecus afarensis and not Homo afarensis, also it it funny how you only point out the traits that support your argument and nothing else, because 'science can be fully trusted, until it contradicts my preconceived beliefs that is.'

So, it looks like an ape, it has a head like an ape, it has arms like an ape, it has shoulder blades like an ape - It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.
Related image
Yes  they are.

The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.


I really don't get this game of Chinese whispers that you creationists are playing with the whole "Nebraska man" thing, literally everyone and their parrot has talked about this (come to think of it I might have in a previous entry) so I won't waste my time or yours.

'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia - BBC News - September 21, 2006
"The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso, and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died."
Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce.

Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said. 
"In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. [The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from."

The news is literally the worst source of information you could go to but in this case ok.

Climbing Ability
"This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet. There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape.

This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the 'Lucy' species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just 'evolutionary baggage'."

and?

Evolution is in trouble. The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."

No it doesn't, none of this contradicts anything we already know, and also you are completely misrepresenting Prof.Gould's views a better quote would be:


 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. 
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]"

(the words in square brackets were added after) this is a criticism of gradualism, and a very valid criticism of what most now consider an outdated view. tweaking to already evidenced ideas will always happen as we learn more that is how learning works.

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't.

Yes it does, you know what it doesn't support, your magic sky-daddy Abracadabra'ing everything into existence all at once.

Related image

deviantID

leptoceratops's Profile Picture
leptoceratops
Dylan
Artist | Hobbyist | Traditional Art
Canada
i do sketches sometimes...
Interests

Friends

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:icondinobirdman:
DinoBirdMan Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2017  Student Artist
Thanks for two faves and watch! :)
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
your welcome :)
Reply
:iconglavenychus:
Glavenychus Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Happy Birthday!!
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you!
Reply
:icontigon1monster:
Tigon1Monster Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017
Happy Birthday!
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you :)
Reply
:icontigon1monster:
Tigon1Monster Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017
Your Welcome.
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
:)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconlorenzo-franzese:
Lorenzo-Franzese Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Happy birthday!
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you! :)
Reply
Add a Comment: