Evolution is Impossible....

Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...

They have...

If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight.

I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...

Make a thread about it.

I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...

THEN READ YOU FUCKING FUNK-BUNNY! I will represent the very small amount of evidence I have presented:

. . . speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples: Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

. . .fossilized evidence towards evolution . . . Archaeopteryx fossils coelacanth fossils Fish Fossils Gish on Precambrian fossils Hominid Fossils Horse fossils Polystrate fossils punctuated equilibria trilobites whale fossils and oh yes...transitional fossils

Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree . . .

. . .bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution.

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics - Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS - Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease - mutations in humans makes bones stronger - Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity - Ribozymes - Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli - mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas - mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment - new enzymatic functions by recombination

Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

(Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures: - The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike - The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant - Aquatic snakes - any animal with an "infrared eye" - various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged.

What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically?

MJ, there's no other explaination than this guy is a troll. He's getting off on you doing all this pretty much. And it's really annoying.

I really cannot see any other way he could be so stupid. It's just not possible.

MJ, there's no other explaination than this guy is a troll. He's getting off on you doing all this pretty much. And it's really annoying.

Yea, but this is still the most fun I've had here for a while, so I'll continue to bite.

You know what's going to happen now, right?

He'll come on, and post a reply: "but you still havent given me any evedence".

And then say the bible is proof that christianity is right and science is wrong.

I admit, I haven't actually read his posts since Pg1... I skim them and use them as a summary of mj's posts!

Has Draco mentioned the Bible at all?

And then say the bible is proof that christianity is right and science is wrong.

I will get to that later... soon as I disprove evolution...

HAHAHAHA!

Oooh look! I see the seasons changing...

I will get to that later... soon as I disprove evolution...

You're not going to disprove evolution, and you're not going to show how the bible is proof of anything, because everyone here but you has a brain.

MJordan has presented you with facts you fucking bitch. Reply to them or bow the fuck down.

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said...
any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed...
I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight. (Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment...

<http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html>

I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed...

As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."...

Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound ...

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...
And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

Like I said above, "...I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...", untill you can give me proper facts on this you have nothing...

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said... any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed... I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

You can't simply decree by fiat that the evidence presented is fake or "make believe," since you, a forum troll, knows nothing compared to world renowned biologists. Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff I've presented is verifiable. Either state why it's fake, or admit that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything, and admit defeat.

Observed speciation is fake? How the fuck is that even possible.

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment... <http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html> I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed... As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."... Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound ...

Again, you should learn scientific vernacular. In the context of biology, tar simply refers to a large heap of hydrocarbons and other moleucles jumbled up in pretty much a disorganized mess. If you actually wanted to say something negative about the Miller-Urey experiment, at least say something smart. If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar, I may have conceded that point to you. I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar. However, the point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate spontaneous generation of amino acids, which it did.

This was not the only experiment of this kind, of course. What about the Oro experiment, which created Adenine along with amino acids.

Anyway, lets get back on topic.

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...

Lets stay at a higher level than 75. IQ-wise.

And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Then you seem to be doing a hell of a job avoiding the answer to it. But I mean more specifically. What type of evidence do you want? Fossilized evidence? That's what you said earlier. Negate the evidence I have presented to you then, and I will feed you more. The evidence is pretty much thought to be incontestable by most of today's biologists, and by the content of your posts I doubt you're smart enough to come up with something new on your own.

Ya know, this troll is actually fun. Draco, if you could, could you reply to this thread as well: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

If a mod wouldn't mind, could I request that be bumped?

Fossils were creating by millions of gnomes working with varying sizes of chissels and intricately fashioned tools.

Gah MJ, you worry me sometimes.

You can't simply decree by fiat that the evidence presented is fake or "make believe," since you, a forum troll, knows nothing compared to world renowned biologists. Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff I've presented is verifiable. Either state why it's fake, or admit that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything, and admit defeat. Observed speciation is fake? How the fuck is that even possible.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

Again, you should learn scientific vernacular. In the context of biology, tar simply refers to a large heap of hydrocarbons and other moleucles jumbled up in pretty much a disorganized mess. If you actually wanted to say something negative about the Miller-Urey experiment, at least say something smart. If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar, I may have conceded that point to you. I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar. However, the point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate spontaneous generation of amino acids, which it did. This was not the only experiment of this kind, of course. What about the Oro experiment, which created Adenine along with amino acids.

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar... also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."...
So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....
And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. ..

Lets stay at a higher level than 75. IQ-wise.

Can we please stay on subject here?

Then you seem to be doing a hell of a job avoiding the answer to it. But I mean more specifically. What type of evidence do you want? Fossilized evidence? That's what you said earlier. Negate the evidence I have presented to you then, and I will feed you more. The evidence is pretty much thought to be incontestable by most of today's biologists, and by the content of your posts I doubt you're smart enough to come up with something new on your own.

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...
Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human... In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar... also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."... So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life.... And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. .. Can we please stay on subject here? I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT... Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

Ok so he's giving you all this evidence and you're ignoring it because you believe it's "fake."

Prove it's fake then.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. ..

Provide evidence of this.

All you have done so far is ignore facts presented to you, or even worse, claim them false without providing any counter-evidence.

If you don't cite sources or provide evidence in your next post, I'm going to consider banning you for being a troll and for your many duplicate accounts.

Ah crap... this guy is making me bash my head against my keyboard so much that now it's bloody and broken in two.

I demand you PayPal me £60 to replace it!

Ah crap... this guy is making me bash my head against my keyboard so much that now it's bloody and broken in two. I demand you PayPal me £60 to replace it!

What trolls do best. He's a pretty good one too.

Grav, most likely MJ would prefer you not ban him, since he seems to be enjoying arguing with a brick wall. If it were me I'd say ban his ass.

Is this guy Kyeruu? I had considered the idea but dismissed it because this guy came long before Kyeruu if I remember right and Kyeruu doesn't put "..." after every sentence in every post he makes.

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

2.) You refuse to reply to my whole post, especially the facts that I give you. The only thing you say is that they're fake. And then provide no evidence. Simply because you think them to be fake, or want them to be fake, doesn't actually make them fake.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

I present examples of speciation to you. You say my evidence is fake. When I call you out on it, then you say it's not fake, and that you never said that. Then at the bottom of your post, you once again say that the evidence I have presented is fake. You contradict yourself entirely too much.

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar...

Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.

also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."... So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....

WHAT? There were no antibiotics in the Miller-Urey experiment. And you do realize that we have tar today. We also have antibiotics today. And we have life today. Or is that evidence fake as well?

And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. ..

Again, you don't understand the definition of tar. Tar is simply a hydrocarbon chain which has many random molecules that bind to carbon's free valence electrons. Basic chemistry. This would not significantly hinder the movement of amino acids.

Can we please stay on subject here?

It's fairly on subject. I would prefer that you not inject morphine or any other minor tranquelizers directly into your brain before typing out a post. That's all I meant, and I think that is very much on topic.

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...

So, now you're saying that the speciation is a fictional thought? Because that was evidence that you said wasn't a fictional thought at the top of your previous post.

Or do you not like the fossils? They're all well-substantiated in scientific evidence.

Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree.

Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God.

Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

You don't like the Miller-Urey experiment? Too bad. You could do it yourself and verify it with simple high-school equipment. And if you don't like Miller-Urey, how about the Oro experiment? Or is that one made up too? Of course! It makes perfect sense! Anything tangible, in the real world, that can actually happen and has been observed happening is make believe! Only God, who exists in a fantastical world outside our universe called heaven is real!

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

So which of those is fictional? The speciation? The squirrel? The beneficial mutations? If you really think any of those are fake, state which ones, and then cite why you think they're fake.

Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

Evidence is fact you moron, it can't be disproved. It can be looked at a new way, yes, but it can't be disproved. The theories created by those facts, however, often can be.

Basically, give us counter-evidence and tell us why you think the evidence I have presented to you is fictional quick, prick.

Or just save face and admit defeat. You're not convincing anyone of anything right now. You're simply becoming the laughing stock of Zelaron.

If you don't cite sources or provide evidence in your next post, I'm going to consider banning you for being a troll and for your many duplicate accounts.

I don't have duplicate accounts this is the only one I have.... I would like you to prove to me that I have duplicate accounts....

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

Remember Lucy, the 'oldest' remains of a human(on an evolutionary basis)...
The thing I don't get is that they find what looks like a monkey skelaton, but it has only one tooth that is similar to a human... If that were true then I could say that dogs were closely related because they have canine teeth... I think scientists like to exaggerate on things to bring it into their favor...

2.) You refuse to reply to my whole post, especially the facts that I give you. The only thing you say is that they're fake. And then provide no evidence. Simply because you think them to be fake, or want them to be fake, doesn't actually make them fake.

Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...

I present examples of speciation to you. You say my evidence is fake. When I call you out on it, then you say it's not fake, and that you never said that. Then at the bottom of your post, you once again say that the evidence I have presented is fake. You contradict yourself entirely too much.

O.K, look.... I am going to clear this whole thing up...
I am saying that adaptation is true, animals can adapt to their surroundings... (example)when you take a hot shower for a couple of days does your skin not feel like you have been burned after a while? (My other example) Remember the frogs in the forest... if there are two types of frogs one yellow and one green, since the trees are going to allow the green frogs to hide easier the green frogs will dominate(natural selection)...
The thing I am against is evolutionary 'benifits' that seem to come out of the blue and help out an unsuspecting creature... if evolution is true why is it that some animals evolved, but others diddn't... take monkeys for example, if they all came from the same evolutionary line why is it that some are still monkeys and others are 'evolved humans'? You would expect from DNA that they all would have evolved, and we would have no monkeys left on Earth... Explain that to me...

Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.

But tar, being an antibiotic, would prevent the rise of any single celled organisms... also, remember when you said, "If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar," and "I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar."... if the Miller-Urey experiment caused tar to form, why is it that this did not occur all over the world? whats the chance of it happening in one single spot especially if the entire area is flat... if there were no trees and the only thing tall was a mountain why did lightining strike that one specific spot?

WHAT? There were no antibiotics in the Miller-Urey experiment. And you do realize that we have tar today. We also have antibiotics today. And we have life today. Or is that evidence fake as well?

sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...

Again, you don't understand the definition of tar. Tar is simply a hydrocarbon chain which has many random molecules that bind to carbon's free valence electrons. Basic chemistry. This would not significantly hinder the movement of amino acids.

So if the tar as you said before would give the amino acids the needed hydrocarbon atoms... wouldn't the hydrocarbons need energy to break away from eachother to form with the amino acids? This would require another lightining srike.... also in the Miller-Urey experiment did they not just use a spark that has at least a tenth of the power of lightining? would their experiment have been fried if they used a bigger shock?

So, now you're saying that the speciation is a fictional thought? Because that was evidence that you said wasn't a fictional thought at the top of your previous post.

I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...

Or do you not like the fossils? They're all well-substantiated in scientific evidence. Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree. Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God. Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have really got to read my posts a little more closely... Look fossils that have been found recorded and researched have nothing to do with evolution... they are just animals that have turned into stone, they are not transitional and do not point to evolution... animals that come from the same line with similar looks and traits as their parents has been proven...
Bacteria become more tolerant to antibiotics because of exposure(another example of adaptation) also I would talk to bacteria, but I am just waiting for evolution to give them the capacity for speech...

You don't like the Miller-Urey experiment? Too bad. You could do it yourself and verify it with simple high-school equipment. And if you don't like Miller-Urey, how about the Oro experiment? Or is that one made up too? Of course! It makes perfect sense! Anything tangible, in the real world, that can actually happen and has been observed happening is make believe! Only God, who exists in a fantastical world outside our universe called heaven is real!

Ya know... I don't believe I have ever heard of the Oro experiment...
Like I said before, I will get to the bible and God later... lets finish this debate first...

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

Have you seen any transitional animals? Because if you have, I would love to see it... Flying squirrels are just another form of squirrel, like flying fish are another form of fish...

So which of those is fictional? The speciation? The squirrel? The beneficial mutations? If you really think any of those are fake, state which ones, and then cite why you think they're fake.

Benificial mutations: I have seen frogs in contaminated water that develop bad or missing legs, I have seen people who have extra arms or even heads that did not work... I really doubt that evolution is any better, I mean based on that, I would seriously doubt that evolution is so perfect that there would be no problems with the creatures that come of it...

Evidence is fact you moron, it can't be disproved. It can be looked at a new way, yes, but it can't be disproved. The theories created by those facts, however, often can be.

Diddn't we go over this?

There is no scientific PROOF. It's a THEORY with LOTS OF EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. Not a LAW with PROOF.

So which is it? Which one of you is right?

Most likely MJ is right, he's smarter than me.

Regardless, you're a fucking idiot.