Thread: message to lucifers followers

Originally Posted by debrajane

Love those Youtubes Knight.

When each individual starts noticing what happens when each person begins to "gently" direct "Our Dreaming Mind" then each individual dreamer will start noticing what happens when each person starts "gently" directing Our Dreaming Mind

Here is what I'm talking about. The sharks responded to an innocent question that a dreamer asked in a dream.

Later

Something big was about to happen, The bigest earth quake in recorded history and like with the sharks, ....

This stuff has no words yet to make concepts of. So We can't talk about it, not even talk to ourselves, as in think about it yet.

Words are needed to think.

Words are needed to share what we think.

If people did my "sync dream game" we would develop the words to talk about this deep and common phenomenon.

Here is the dream sync thread with the sharks, earth quake and so on, on.

***

http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...-reloaded.html

***

I think you might understand Knight.

in 24 hours check this website. And report the news story on here.
News.com.au | News Online from Australia and the World | NewsComAu

but before you do that check this video out

No no no no knight

The sync game has nothing to do with so-called enlightened power brokers (illuminati).

Those sharks coming-in were not being controlled by illuminati.

paul-stanley-03.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/41st_warriors/illuminati.htm

http://www.kissopolis.com/2010/10/pa...ween-make.html

http://www.conspirazzi.com/tag/knigh...atans-service/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread116607/pg1



Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley are Jews, and Gene Simmons was born in Israel. He is a major Zionist. Some websites call him a Luciferian Zionist.


I just formed a bunch of loose associations and posted some bullshit. That was fun.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I just formed a bunch of loose associations and posted some bullshit. That was fun.

and yet here is something more relevant

Knight31

Deaf and mute healed

***

Deaf and Mute Healed - YouTube

***(4:56)

In 1977 to 1984 I knew Steve Ryder. We had regular 6 hour prayer and worship meetings from 6pm to midnight. Many would fast from 24 hours to 3 days befor the meet.

The reason for the regular prayer and fasting was because when the disciples couldn't heal and deliver a man... but when the disciples brouhht him to Jesus could. They later asked Jesus why they couldn't. And Jesus told them thet some will not be healed and delivered with out prayer and fasting.

Steve Ryder was the "real deal" way back then. He is still working for Jesus today.

Originally Posted by debrajane

Knight31

Deaf and mute healed

***

Deaf and Mute Healed - YouTube

***(4:56)

In 1977 to 1984 I knew Steve Ryder. We had regular 6 hour prayer and worship meetings from 6pm to midnight. Many would fast from 24 hours to 3 days befor the meet.

The reason for the regular prayer and fasting was because when the disciples couldn't heal and deliver a man... but when the disciples brouhht him to Jesus could. They later asked Jesus why they couldn't. And Jesus told them thet some will not be healed and delivered with out prayer and fasting.

Steve Ryder was the "real deal" way back then. He is still working for Jesus today.

It might help, but there is things more fun to do than fasting and praying you know lol

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Universal Mind

Gary Numan has a brand New fan

Meeeeeee

Universal Mind you seem to be living in the far distant past called the 80's and beyond. So lets go back there now to something you understand lol

What do you mean by "lucifer's followers"? Is that anyone who isn't a Christian? Or satanists? I just don't see why God would punish people for not believing in him. What does he expect? All we've got is a 2,000 year old book that may or may not be true, and we have to follow that exsclusively. A book that condones a number of things that are illegal and brutal.

Originally Posted by uglyian

What do you mean by "lucifer's followers"? Is that anyone who isn't a Christian? Or satanists? I just don't see why God would punish people for not believing in him. What does he expect? All we've got is a 2,000 year old book that may or may not be true, and we have to follow that exsclusively. A book that condones a number of things that are illegal and brutal.

actually, evolutionist have nothing to show for their theories other than past frauds and baseless propaganda not based on any science. But the blue print of gods creation is in DNA and all life. I can see you didn't watch the video I posted.

But here is reasons behind evidence of the bible being true. These videos are only warm ups. Going to get a lot worse.

Originally Posted by knight31

actually, evolutionist religions have nothing to show for their theories other than past frauds and baseless propaganda not based on any science.

fixed

nah dude cause the bible

You're part and parcel, container of, and contained within. You aren't the greatest whole, but the light of that god shines through you nonetheless, using your mind as its minister. Let the minister serve the light but don't let it confuse itself with the light. To do so would be the same as if Hamlet said "I am Shakespeare".

You're not just parcel, and you're not just part.

Saying there is no evidence for evolution is like saying there is no evidence that the earth is round. All the evidence supports it. There is fossil records, DNA evidence, vestigial organs, examples of species diverging in human records. Evolution predicts several things and we can test it and it proves it self correct.

You don't even have to go farther than a mirror though, the evidence is right in front of you. Goosebumps is a vestigial reaction that humans have from before when we were covered with fur, and the goosebumps would make our hair stand up to make us look bigger. Humans have a tail bone, hello we don't have a tail! Our ancestors had a tail though. We got left over ear muscles that are basically useless since we can turn our head instead of moving our ears around. There is muscles in our eyes from when we had a transparent eye lid for swimming in the water.

There is many more, there is so much left over crap in humans from our long gone ancestors. How do you explain all these things? Was god just drunk when he made humans? He threw in a lot of extra stuff just for fun? Of course we know where all these things come from because we got fossil records to back up and prove that humans evolved from other things before it, and that is where we got all these left over things.

It seems like a waste to put so much reasoning and effort into responses on this thread..
But then I suppose it does help when people who are undecided or maybe have never encountered good well-reasoned arguments start reading the thread. I just don't think any of it is going to sway Knight31 one teensy little bit (and that's assuming he's not a troll, which he very well may be)

Originally Posted by Alric

Saying there is no evidence for evolution is like saying there is no evidence that the earth is round. All the evidence supports it. There is fossil records, DNA evidence, vestigial organs, examples of species diverging in human records. Evolution predicts several things and we can test it and it proves it self correct.

The only evidence that even came close to proving anything was found to be a fraud, made from like a monkey jaw and a human skull. The only way anyone would even attempt to accept it is if they made some fraudulent fossils up to fill in all the massive gaps, which they tried to do but got caught out. There has been heeps of fraud committed by evolutionist and well as deceptive illustrations of pictures of monkey man people that have no scientific basis at all. Just the imagination of evolutionist. I guess you don't want the examples cause it would be too painful? And no, the difficulty of proving Darwinist theories (or adapted theories) is that you can't add information to DNA from any mutations. If you know what that means you know you are entirely screwed. You actually have it backwards, Evolutionary theory is more like believing the earth is flat. You are behind in understanding not in front lol.

Humans have a tail bone, hello we don't have a tail! Our ancestors had a tail though.

We also have 50% of our genetics the same as a banana, but we don't go around saying you are half bananas, or do you? There is plenty of species that has a tailbone doesn't mean you were once a monkey. Just like 50% genetically related to a banana doesn't mean you were once a banana that evolved into a human somehow. Everything is related to everything else in some way but that doesn't mean things mutated in the way you assume, which is frankly ridiculous.

We got left over ear muscles that are basically useless since we can turn our head instead of moving our ears around. There is muscles in our eyes from when we had a transparent eye lid for swimming in the water.

So you think we evolved out of the water? This is the most funny assumption ever, there is not a shred of evidence how we would do that. Just because something has a similar attribute of something else doesn't prove anything. Face it you are attempting a losing battle here. You may as well say the work of shakespeare must have been written by a bunch of monkeys some-where with typewriters, rather than suggest a person called Shakespeare did it. Or if I arrange a pattern of stones in a specific order on the ground, you just assume the wind blew them around in that order to make a distinct pattern. Clearly that's not a wise assumption to make.

Was god just drunk when he made humans? He threw in a lot of extra stuff just for fun? Of course we know where all these things come from because we got fossil records to back up and prove that humans evolved from other things before it, and that is where we got all these left over things.

You ain't got jack crap. You just got a bunch of skeletons from different species, big deal. So what if you have fossils of different species? You can't answer how they evolved which is suppose to be the core of your theory. Rather than asking if god was drunk, maybe ask if you are drunk on something, to think that you know what evidence consists of. It seems that you aren't even aware of what science consists of to make absurd claims.

There is muscles in our eyes from when we had a transparent eye lid for swimming in the water.

yes we once swam around in the water and lived in the sea like a fish, you crack me up, I don't know of any other theory more absurd about our history that you could imply than this.



Can't you get how non scientific that would be?

mutations don't even cause advancements in DNA, let alone allow a species to transfer themselves from the ocean to the land HAHA.
I suppose you will also assume that our penises are actually a third leg and swimming apparatus that mutated from our fish like ancestors that somehow allowed us to re-produce more human looking species, and that mermaids were a big part of this process (if you could find evidence of a mermaid)

The thing that is probably most funny is the high horse you sit on when you claim these crazy theories, as if anyone that didn't believe in your pseudo science was somehow less intelligent. The scientific community doesn't even agree with you at this stage, they only reason you believe in this is cause of outdated textbooks adapted from Darwin's work with propaganda about it floating around that give you an excuse to believe in something that doesn't have to face the truth of the matter.

That is just a flat out lie, there is a ton of fossil evidence. There are thousands of fossils, and bones and evidence of that sort that has been collected over the years. Saying that there is none or that they are all fake just proves your total ignorance on the subject.

You are also totally ignorant when it comes to understanding DNA. Saying that we share 50% of our genetics with a banana and so you can't learn anything from genes is stupid. It just means you need a more in depth understanding than you can fit into a talking point. When you actually study the genes you can find a lot of evidence for evolution.

Though you entirely ignore my point. A lot of species have tail bones because a lot of animals have tails or had tails. Why would humans have it though, if they never had a tail? There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence that life evolved in the sea before moving onto land. All the evidence supports this. That is why all the oldest fossils are from sea creatures. The further you go back in the fossil records the more simple creatures are, and you can trace life all the way back.

As for how animals evolved, we know exactly how it happened. I can easily explain it to you, that is the entire point evolution, it explain it. Animals evolve through random mutations, which when beneficial are passed down to it's off spring. Over extremely long periods of times, traits that are beneficial are picked up by a group as the group with the advantage has an edge over the other group without the trait and more successful breed. The more successful an adaptation is, the more successful it's off spring will be. That is how evolution work.

We know it works because we breed animals all the time. Look at dogs, and how many breeds of dogs humans created through selective breeding. Evolution works just like selective breeding of dogs and animals. We can see evolution happening before our very own eyes, it is clear as day. The difference between breeding and evolution is only a matter of time. Different breeds of dogs are still all dogs and can mate with each other but given a hundred thousand years all those subgroups of dogs would have changed enough from each other that they would no longer be the same species, they would be different species.

Right now you are arguing the equivalent of saying the earth is flat, and you are ignoring all the evidence. You need to stop saying other people are clueless about science because you have no clue what so ever what you are talking about. You don't even have a high school level understanding of science and when you say stuff like that, you make your self look mentally challenged.

Pretty much all scientist support evolution and at this point it is pretty clear that we can call evolution a fact. I am going to break it down for you, and make it really easy and really clear. I am going to prove evolution beyond any doubt, so that even you will have to admit it true.

We know that genetics follow families right? People look similar to their parents. This is proven, and everyone knows this. Do you deny it? Or will accept that children take their genes from their parents and so are similar to them? Let me know if I lose you and I will go back and explain things.

Now secondly we know there is a great many people in the world. There is light skinned, and dark skinned people of all colors. People with red hair, and brown hair, and blond and black. There are extremely short midgets, and extremely tall people. We see this every where we go, clearly there are different ethnic groups around and there is a lot of variation within them and out side of them. Do you deny that? Have I said anything that isn't true so far?

Now according to the bible all humans come from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve's children should look similar to them correct? Genes are past from parent to child, and so they should be similar make up genetically. Now we know for a fact that people have changed since Adam and Eve, there is no way all the variations came from just two people if there was never any changes along the way.

So I will ask you. Will you accept that along the way from parent to child down many generations that genes can change? If genes can not change at all, then how do explain the great variation among all humans, who came from only two parents? I don't want to lose you now, so answer that and then I will go to the next step to prove to you evolution.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is just a flat out lie, there is a ton of fossil evidence. There are thousands of fossils, and bones and evidence of that sort that has been collected over the years. Saying that there is none or that they are all fake just proves your total ignorance on the subject.

Collecting a bunch of bones doesn't even say anything when you can't say how they are connected or how they evolved. It's not a lie it's fact.

You are also totally ignorant when it comes to understanding DNA.

Then tell me how mutations can add any information. Oh, you can't, cause you don't understand the science you just assume it's true.

A lot of species have tail bones because a lot of animals have tails or had tails. Why would humans have it though, if they never had a tail?

If you are going to use science go with scientific rules. I don't need to explain why we have certain bones in us. That's actually what you are suppose to do with your theory of evolution. I'm not the one claiming we evolved from monkeys so I actually don't need to explain why we have certain bones. Your mistake is in assuming that because we have a certain bone in us that it means we came from a different species when in fact, this is not what science does and it would be an incorrect assumption to make. Did it ever occur to you that many species have many similarities? Just because we have eyes in the front of our head doesn't mean we are related to another species that also has it.

There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence that life evolved in the sea before moving onto land.

Then where is it? Specifically where is the evidence that we evolved from fish into humans. Don't just say that there is evidence prove it.

All the evidence supports this.

all the evidence proves there's a pink Unicorn in my room right now. Because according to you I don't have to tell you why.

The further you go back in the fossil records the more simple creatures are, and you can trace life all the way back.

You are mistaking your theory for what reality is. That is not what the evidence actually shows.

As for how animals evolved

Are you seriously thinking you made a good argument so far with zero evidence? You didn't even deal with my question yet, which is key. How does mutations produce any further advancements in DNA?

Animals evolve through random mutations, which when beneficial are passed down to it's off spring.

once again that's your theory, but there is no evidence that's it's possible for a mutation to produce a benefit. Your theory is not based on anything that happened in real life.

The more successful an adaptation is, the more successful it's off spring will be. That is how evolution work.

But it doesn't work cause it's never being demonstrated or observed in real life before. Adaptions of Behaviors are different to mutations of genetics. So you must be getting confused now between adaptive behaviors, compared with mutation of genetics that produce advanced information.

We know it works because we breed animals all the time. Look at dogs, and how many breeds of dogs humans created through selective breeding.

lol. Breeding dogs are not genetic mutations. They are mixing genes together. Just because a white American breeds with a black person doesn't mean you are creating a mutation that is an advancement of the human species. And different breeds of dogs are not an advancement of dogs either. You couldn't breed dogs together to evolve them to walk on two legs and become like a monkey for example. The most you will get is a mixture of two dog breeds, and that's not even a mutation. If you refer to genetic engineering even, that's mixing gene's together artificially, not a process of evolution.

Evolution works just like selective breeding of dogs and animals. We can see evolution happening before our very own eyes, it is clear as day.

You are clearly uneducated if you think breeding different dogs is the Darwinist theory of evolution.

The difference between breeding and evolution is only a matter of time. Different breeds of dogs are still all dogs and can mate with each other but given a hundred thousand years all those subgroups of dogs would have changed enough from each other that they would no longer be the same species, they would be different species.

Actually they would still be the same species, known as dogs. Nothing could change cause mutations aren't happening with breeding, and mutations are a different subject. Mutations can't make advancements in DNA. Unless you can give an example? The only way your theory could possibly work is if you jump to the wild assumption that over perhaps billions of years they could somehow magically change. But no amount of time can make the impossible happen and your assumption is not based on anything. You simply have a mis-understanding of what you are talking about.

Right now you are arguing the equivalent of saying the earth is flat, and you are ignoring all the evidence. You need to stop saying other people are clueless about science because you have no clue what so ever what you are talking about. You don't even have a high school level understanding of science and when you say stuff like that, you make your self look mentally challenged.

ummm what's the name of this album tell me the name of it.

You are not reading what I am saying. We can date fossils and bones, and that is how you trace evolution back in time. If you take all the fossils dated to set periods you get a snap shot of what was living during that time. If you follow the timeline back you can trace the evolutionary path of all the animals back to their common ancestors. If you go back far enough you can see where the branches split off, and how we all came from sea creatures originally.

Selective breeding of dogs is exactly what evolution is, but over a shorter time period. They work on the same mechanics, if you don't understand that, you don't understand evolution. When we selective breed we manipulate natural evolution to get what we want. Evolution has been shown to work and proven to exist.

Read my last post though, and reply to that and I will explain it even further and make it simple enough for even you to understand.

Originally Posted by Alric

You are not reading what I am saying. We can date fossils and bones, and that is how you trace evolution back in time. If you take all the fossils dated to set periods you get a snap shot of what was living during that time. If you follow the timeline back you can trace the evolutionary path of all the animals back to their common ancestors. If you go back far enough you can see where the branches split off, and how we all came from sea creatures originally.

Selective breeding of dogs is exactly what evolution is, but over a shorter time period. They work on the same mechanics, if you don't understand that, you don't understand evolution. When we selective breed we manipulate natural evolution to get what we want. Evolution has been shown to work and proven to exist.

Read my last post though, and reply to that and I will explain it even further and make it simple enough for even you to understand.

wow, you repeated yourself without answering, or listening. I guess that warrants a slightly different video then.








How does a genetic mutation produce an advancement of genetic information. The foundation of your theory.

If you can't answer that, you don't have a theory.

oh my finger slipped an entire video series of why evolution is wrong for you to educate yourself with.

It is extremely easy to show and I already explained it. Let's say you have a group of dogs. You breed them and you pick out the tallest dogs and let them breed and you don't allow the shortest dogs to breed. After several generations all the dogs would be taller because you are selecting the trait that favors the tallest dogs. This is how we selectively bred dogs in the past and how we came up with the different breeds of dogs.

Traits are controlled by genes. So when you select for any particular trait you are selecting that gene as well. When genes are passed on from parent to child there is always some random variation. Some of that variation can be due to mutation. All evolution is, is the process of passing genes from parent to child and it says that over time small variations that are advantageous to a group are selected for in that group.

There is no possible way you could believe the bible, that all humans came from Adam and Eve, and we got the current variation among humans, without admitting that random variations are possible. If you admit random variations are possible, then there is no way you can deny evolution since evolution is just the passing on the traits caused by that variation. Obviously not everything is random because children look like their parents.

Like you pointed out already the difference between a banana and human isn't more complex DNA, it is just the pattern inside the DNA is different. If you change the sequence of DNA without making it any longer or short, or even anything within it, just the order things are in you can get very different results. So if there is a mistake in the sequencing of DNA, it can cause a random variation or mutation as you will. If that variation is advantageous the life form will successfully mate and have a chance to pass on that new sequence. Over a long time, the group will take on the forms that are more advantageous to their survival.

Not only is it logical and makes sense, we can also prove it with the hundreds of experiments done to prove evolution. Such as this one.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Alric

It is extremely easy to show and I already explained it. Let's say you have a group of dogs. You breed them and you pick out the tallest dogs and let them breed and you don't allow the shortest dogs to breed. After several generations all the dogs would be taller because you are selecting the trait that favors the tallest dogs. This is how we selectively bred dogs in the past and how we came up with the different breeds of dogs.

If you seriously manipulate the genes of dogs in a drastic way, that becomes genetic engineering, not natural selection. Btw even if you tried to breed the largest dogs. You will reach a limit. The dogs won't get bigger and bigger forever. The dogs won't turn into giants, DNA doesn't do that.

Traits are controlled by genes. So when you select for any particular trait you are selecting that gene as well. When genes are passed on from parent to child there is always some random variation. Some of that variation can be due to mutation. All evolution is, is the process of passing genes from parent to child and it says that over time small variations that are advantageous to a group are selected for in that group.

Traits in reference to specific behaviors, have no connection to the genetic information and my decision to turn left or right, get angry or happy, has nothing to do with my DNA structure, they are behaviors I choose to engage in are too complex to be referenced in my genetics. If it was even remotely possible we would lock criminals up before they even committed a crime based on their genetics or we would modify their genetics to prevent crime. There is no chart of what behavior or responses are from what genetics because no such connections exist in science yet. Sorry about your lack of evidence but environment is just as critical as genetics.

Natural selection doesn't work because no variations ever result in added information to DNA to cause any drastic adaptions. Mutations are just that, mutations, not advancement. You can't cut an apple up and get more apple that you started with. Unless you are a evolutionist, in which case you can simply believe in magic, but it still won't work in real life.

There is no possible way you could believe the bible, that all humans came from Adam and Eve, and we got the current variation among humans, without admitting that random variations are possible. If you admit random variations are possible, then there is no way you can deny evolution since evolution is just the passing on the traits caused by that variation. Obviously not everything is random because children look like their parents.

You must not understand what the foundation of evolution has to imply for it to be true. No variation could cause the genetics of a fish to mutate into a human. Not even over billions of years.

If that variation is advantageous the life form will successfully mate and have a chance to pass on that new sequence. Over a long time, the group will take on the forms that are more advantageous to their survival.

You know what is funny is experiments have proven the opposite of what you say, in that they have blinded fruit flies before and tried to change their genetics, only to find they re-grain their sight and the genetics goes back to how it was, rather than advances or does something different, which is what you claim variations can do, but they can't even be passed on cause mutations regress back to the original dna lol.

And you can't mutate something into more complexity, when you throw a grenade at the enemy does it blow them into a person with more legs and arms than they previously had, or does it just blow their body apart? Why do you think that a mutation could add extra complexity. That's like nuking a country and expecting the city to be more complex and civilized after the nuke.

Not only is it logical and makes sense, we can also prove it with the hundreds of experiments done to prove evolution. Such as this one.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

lol is that the best you can find. A Bacterial experiment from 1988 in which nothing significant happened. The bacteria remained bacteria, as expected.

out of the millions of mutations in that only 10 or 20 had any kind of effect you could measure, and it still didn't lead to any significant change that meant anything. All the mutations really did was damage the DNA, that's the only effect because that's what mutations are. How can you think this experiment is solid proof that we evolved from fish is pretty lame. It's just one failed experiment, out of so many.

Now think about what we know about DNA, and you can safely say that there is no chance that natural selection could have possibly built us in the history that the earth has existed for. Not even over trillions of years is there even a significantly remote chance that natural selection could have caused us to grow from nothing, to fish, to monkeys, to humans. By pure calculation of probability of what we do know, that is not even a statistical chance that it might happen. Just one cell in our body we have found to be so incredibly complex that no serious scientists would ever try and suggest that it somehow fell into place, it just wouldn't happen. Just like the house you are now living in didn't build itself on it's own, get it? As per your failed experiment they couldn't even get bacteria to change into anything. Infact you can't get something from nothingness. That simple logic alone shoots down all the work evolutionist have ever done (most of it fraud) and the more they are trying to verify their theory the more it's disproving it.

Get some perspective on what you are believing in, or get an idea of what you are claiming.

Originally Posted by knight31

If you seriously manipulate the genes of dogs in a drastic way, that becomes genetic engineering, not natural selection. Btw even if you tried to breed the largest dogs. You will reach a limit. The dogs won't get bigger and bigger forever. The dogs won't turn into giants, DNA doesn't do that.

Are you mentally retarded? Look at a Great Dane, and then look at a Chihuahua. How drastic of a difference do you want there to be before you are willing to admit that groups can change over time? You are in denial and it is that simple.

Traits in reference to specific behaviors, have no connection to the genetic information and my decision to turn left or right, get angry or happy, has nothing to do with my DNA structure, they are behaviors I choose to engage in and are too complex to be referenced in my genetics. If it was even remotely possible we would lock criminals up before they even committed a crime based on their genetics. There is no chart of what behavior or responses are from what genetics because no such connections exist in science yet. Sorry about your lack of evidence but environment is just as critical as genetics.

I was talking about physical traits and this has nothing to do with anything at all.

Natural selection doesn't work because no variations ever result in added information to DNA to cause any drastic adaptions. Mutations are just that, mutations, not advancement. You can't cut an apple up and get more apple that you started with. Unless you are a evolutionist, in which case you can simply believe in magic, but it still won't work in real life.

DNA is just similar things repeating a great deal. It is actually extremely easy to have a mutation in dna that makes one section longer or add another sequence to it. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There is entire books of genetic disorders that are caused by things like having extra chromosomes and stuff. If you were correct then genetic disorders wouldn't exist but they clearly do. Most mutations are harmful but a few rare ones are beneficial.

You can't cut an apple and get more apple than you started with but a cell can divide and you get more cells that you started with. In fact that is how people are made up. Don't you know people start from a single cell and that cell divides and divides until you get a more complex organism. What you just said goes against basic biology and how all living things were created. Don't you even understand how humans are born?

You must not understand what the foundation of evolution has to imply for it to be true. No variation could cause the genetics of a fish to mutate into a human. Not even over billions of years.

Yes it can. Not only can it, we know it has for a fact.

You know what is funny is experiments have proven the opposite of what you say, in that they have blinded fruit flies before and tried to change their genetics, only to find they re-grain their sight and the genetics goes back to how it was, rather than advances or does something different, which is what you claim variations can do, but they can't even be passed on cause mutations regress back to the original dna lol.

And you can't mutate something into more complexity, when you throw a grenade at the enemy does it blow them into a person with more legs and arms than they previously had, or does it just blow their body apart? Why do you think that a mutation could add extra complexity. That's like nuking a country and expecting the city to be more complex and civilized after the nuke.

What is with the stupid analogies? It is like a single cell dividing and getting an entire person. How does a single cell divide into a complex living and thinking human being? It happens one cell at a time and they build up on each other. Evolution is a process of tiny changes that build up on them self over extremely long periods of time.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol is that the best you can find. A Bacterial experiment from 1988 in which nothing significant happened. The bacteria remained bacteria, as expected.

out of the millions of mutations in that only 10 or 20 had any kind of effect you could measure, and it still didn't lead to any significant change that meant anything. All the mutations really did was damage the DNA, that's the only effect because that's what mutations are. How can you think this experiment is solid proof that we evolved from fish is pretty lame. It's just one failed experiment, out of so many.

There are thousands of examples, most deal with plants and bacteria or small insects because evolution takes an extremely long time. You can't do it with humans because it would take tens of thousands of years to get noticeable results.

As for the results, how about you try reading them? You keep telling me things can't change but they are all different from each other. They all produce asexually, which means they should all be identical to each other. The fact that they are all different proves there are changing mutations in them. Just because the changes don't seem impressive to you, doesn't mean they are not changing.

You claim you know science but this is where you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Any changes are scientifically important. No scientist would ever say a change doesn't matter because it isn't flashy or impressive. You are just ignoring the data that disproves your claim.

Now think about what we know about DNA, and you can safely say that there is no chance that natural selection could have possibly built us in the history that the earth has existed for. Not even over trillions of years is there even a significantly remote chance that natural selection could have caused us to grow from nothing, to fish, to monkeys, to humans. By pure calculation of probability of what we do know, that is not even a statistical chance that it might happen. It would be like winning the lottery thousands of millions of times in a row straight. That's the kind of odds that you have faith in. There is not enough time since the earth existed, for us to even evolve through that process. As per your failed experiment they couldn't even get bacteria to change into anything. Infact you can't get something from nothingness. That simple logic alone shoots down all the work evolutionist have ever done (most of it fraud) and the more they are trying to verify their theory the more it's disproving it.

You don't know the probability of that, you are just pulling random numbers out of your ass and no one here is buying them. If you take the bacteria in that experiment I talked about, it goes through 2273 generations per year. Life began 3.4 million years ago. Which means the bacteria would go through 7,728,200,000,000 generations. If only one mutation out of a million was successfully passed on, then the final generation would have 7,728,200 different mutations than the original. In other words it would be anything even remotely close to what it was originally.

You seem to totally fail to grasp the large numbers and amount of time involved in this. The fact that you think bacteria would evolve into an animal after 22 years kind of proves it. It takes thousands and thousands of years and the fact that there are changes and mutations shown in almost every generation proves evolution.