ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

So how does that prove that animals bred humans descendants? All your post shows is what could have happened before there were any witnesses. That's called science fiction, not science.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

LOL. Again, claiming there were glaciers is as much science fiction as claiming that the world was once covered with lava. It's all speculation that comes from looking at a piece of ground, then claiming that the whole ground was once that way.In fact, that's how scientists make up reality. That's how they speculate how the world was formed and anything else that happened before there were any witnesses. I saw a show on the Discovery Science Channel where one guy was playing with a baloon filled with salt and watched how that salt settled, then claimed, "that's how the world was formed!"And that's how scientists (it's importnant that they call themselves scientists so people will listen to them)have formulated:1) That apes turned into humans
2) How the world was formed
3) That the world was covered in ice
4) That if there's life on Mars, that means there were Martians (as some "scientists" now claim.So again,since that's how science fiction writers come up with their plots, then that's called science fiction, not science.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

That's no more evidence of common descent than looking at a woman who looks like my aunt then claiming that she's a close relative of my aunt. That's making imaginary connections where none exist.Evidence is OBERSVABLE PHENOMENA, not imaginary connections. And since an ape has never been witnessed giving birth to a human or anything resembling a human since man has walked the earth, then evolution is not observable phenomena, only imaginary connections.

Sorry, but since the OP's scenario doesn't happen in real life then it's called science fiction, not science. Forensics deals in observable phenomena, not imaginary scenarios. And since it's never been observed that an animal's DNA has ever been inserted into a human and produced a half-man, half beast, then evolution is a fairy tale which is why it's still only called a theory.

I know exactly what evolutionary biology endorses because I heard it for over 30 years in school. I'm simply pointing out how impossible it is which one can know if he only understands the birds and the bees. So since I may be going too fast for evolutionists, I'll slow down and spell it out for them. Here's what evolutionists claim:1) That from an imaginary animal called a common ancestor (and it's imaginary because it still only exists in the imaginations of men)came all other life. This is not only impossible (which I will show) but it's fictitious because no one knows what this beast looks like, when it lived, or where it came from.2) The next claim is that this animal just...well...changed into other species through the process of mutation which are tiny changes in the genes over millions of years. That has not only never been observed to occur, but it doesnt' describe how and why these changes happened. Some evolutionists have claimed that the environment changed those genes, but as you can see, the environment has changed a lot in the short time we've been on earth and it hasn't inspired any animal to change or turn into another animal yet. Other evolutionists claim this happened by "natural selection" but negelect to understand that genes can't select anything! Genes don't make decisions. They simply travel along to the offspring through the sperm and/or egg of their parents.3) And again, since none of this has ever been observed to happen in reality, then it is a fairy tale as complex as "Lord of the Rings." In fact it's so complex that evolutionists themselves can't even agree on what the theory of evolution propones. So the theory of evolution is as unscientific as looking at a buttefly and claiming that it came from a cow because it...well...just changed into a butterfly over millions of years.4) But reality shows that each species only reproduces ITSELF (which is what the word reproduction means) unless cross-bred with an animal with whom it's capable of producing offpsring. Thus, chickens don't turn into pigs, giraffes don't turn into elephants and monkeys don't turn into skunks, zebras or humans in reality. All any evolutionist has to do is explain why those things don't happen and they will see why evolution is impossible. But evolutionists ALWAYS avoid explaining that to maintain this fairy tale of a fictitious beast called a "common ancestor". Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Sorry but the "you don't understand evolution" argument which every single Christian hears from evolutionists won't work because they end up denying what they themseves say. Here is the definition of Natural selection in the "Dictionary of Scientific Literacy";"The tendency of those individuals better suited to their environment to survive and perpetuate their species, leading to changes in the genetic of the species, and eventually to the origin of a NEW SPECIES." Actually that really says nothing.First it presupposes that only the fit survive which is a blatant falsehood since the fit and unfit always co-exist in every single species.Secondly, those who survive in a species DO NOT CHANGE INTO A NEW SPECIES. They never have and never will. Evolutionists are actually claiming that genes are makineg decisions to change because one animal can outperform another, which is ludicrous. So what do evolutionists think humans will change into?So the probelem is, that since evolutionists deny every statement we make about evolution, they end up denying their own theory and have no theory left. And since the theory of evolution is imagainary, one will get as many different definitions of evolution as there are people who tell them. So the theory is a hoax and nothing more.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Again, since evolutionists deny everything we creationists say about evolution, then they deny their own theory and have no theory left. So far, evolutionists have denied:1) The claim that monkeys bred human descendants
2) The claim that monkeys turned into human descendants
3) The claim that the fit survive because they also have said that no one can define "fit".So again, evolutionists have no theory left because they're a house divded against themselves.

How do I use topic titles?

Since I claim that evolutionists claim that apes bred human descendants or turned into humans and you deny it, and you claim I'm wrong, then you have no theory left. So thanks for proving evolution a hoax, and by your own words. It can't get any better than that.