The forbidden TRUTH

[Ceepea]

Evidence from paleontology


An insect trapped in amber.
When organisms die, they often decompose rapidly or are consumed by scavengers, leaving no permanent evidences of their existence. However, occasionally, some organisms are preserved. The remains or traces of organisms from a past geologic age embedded in rocks by natural processes are called fossils. They are extremely important for understanding the evolutionary history of life on Earth, as they provide direct evidence of evolution and detailed information on the ancestry of organisms. Paleontology is the study of past life based on fossil records and their relations to different geologic time periods.

For fossilization to take place, the traces and remains of organisms must be quickly buried so that weathering and decomposition do not occur. Skeletal structures or other hard parts of the organisms are the most commonly occurring form of fossilized remains (Paul, 199, (Behrensmeyer, 1980) and (Martin, 1999). There are also some trace "fossils" showing moulds, cast or imprints of some previous organisms.

As an animal dies, the organic materials gradually decay, such that the bones become porous. If the animal is subsequently buried in mud, mineral salts infiltrate into the bones and gradually fill up the pores. The bones harden into stones and are preserved as fossils. This process is known as petrification. If dead animals are covered by wind-blown sand, and if the sand is subsequently turned into mud by heavy rain or floods, the same process of mineral infiltration may occur. Apart from petrification, the dead bodies of organisms may be well preserved in ice, in hardened resin of coniferous trees (amber), in tar, or in anaerobic, acidic peat. Fossilization can sometimes be a trace, an impression of a form. Examples include leaves and footprints, the fossils of which are made in layers that then harden.

 

[Ceepea]

Fossil record


Fossil trilobite. Trilobites were hard-shelled arthropods, related to living horseshoe crabs and spiders, that first appeared in significant numbers around 540 mya, dying out 250 mya.
It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils typical for a specific time period when they formed. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.

A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil discoveries. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.[60]

For many years, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.

Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times when species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species that adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection.

Extent of the fossil record

 

[ghostdriver]

Well I guess I have to now copy and paste everything explaining what nonsense your claims are that no way suggest darwinism...

 

[ghostdriver]

Do you really think the fact living things consist of the same genetics anything of what your saying suggest this nothing from something idea and that things are all transforming from one thing yet there is no suggestion to think this? Of course you don't, I have already explained this. Unless of course the truth upsets you so much that you don't read my post. Which is definitely seeming true with the amount of times I have had to repeat myself on this subject and "freewill" and how one guy was answering the questions he asked me, after I answered them. Thinking I was asking them.

Breath... I know this is a lot to grasp
Take a walk or something, smoke some herb. However unfortunately I will be having to re-post, for numerous reasons, one because your'e spamming something I have answered and two, I don't mind re answering questions if you would take the time to read. So although you are adding views and making the thread longer your're spam isn't appreciated if you want to talk about something I haven't already explained numerous times your post will no longer be considered "spam"
Beautiful Day today! GET SOME SUN IT HELPS YOU THINK

 

[Ceepea]

Do you really think the fact living things consist of the same genetics anything of what your saying suggest this nothing from something idea and that things are all transforming from one thing yet there is no suggestion to think this?

There is evidence, and I posted it. Your inability to understand doesn't make it less substantial. As I've already established, you're an idiot with a third grader understanding of science, at best.

Of course you don't,

Yes I do, and so does virtually every other scientist in the world. The only 'scientist' you've 'cited' is a known crack pot Islamist creationist.

Small mutations in offspring lead to big changes over time. Lots of time. We've actually watched it happen, that's how we know it exists. If species that multiply extremely quickly we can see the genetic changes.

I have already explained this. Unless of course the truth upsets you so much that you don't read my post. Which is definitely seeming true with the amount of times I have had to repeat myself on this subject and "freewill" and how one guy was answering the questions he asked me, after I answered them. Thinking I was asking them.

You can't answer any questions about free will because you don't understand the concept and how it's incompatible with a creator who knows our fates, and set everything in motion.

Breath... I know this is a lot to grasp

Nah, you're simple.

Take a walk or something, smoke some herb. However unfortunately I will be having to re-post, for numerous reasons, one because your'e spamming something I have answered and two, I don't mind re answering questions if you would take the time to read. So although you are adding views and making the thread longer your're spam isn't appreciated if you want to talk about something I haven't already explained numerous times your post will no longer be considered "spam"
Beautiful Day today! GET SOME SUN IT HELPS YOU THINK

You didn't address anything I posted.

You said, 'Do you really think the fact living things consist of the same genetics anything of what your saying suggest this nothing from something idea and that things are all transforming from one thing yet there is no suggestion to think this?'m

...as an answer to numerous posts, with sources, verified by numerous scientific bodies.

The bible was written by men, to control men. Christianity stole a lot of its fables from other religions, and re-branded them as their own. Creation doesn't make sense; you claim matter can't create matter, I say why can't matter be eternal in some form? No need for creation at all. We know we can't destroy energy, so why assume we can destroy or create matter?

 

[ghostdriver]

Well I did and I'm about to answer you again, without insulting you like you did me because i'm not upset of the truth I rejoice and love the truth.

 

[ghostdriver]

Everything you just posted states that the body of humans and creatures have the ability to be acclimated which was the starting point of darwins theory. There is no proof that human beings come from bacteria or any creature ever. I'm sure you got excited at this misleading presentation but read what you posted. Your'e saying that I said animals and human beings flesh are not similar, they are very similar in someways but our soul is nothing like theirs. I'm not asking you to prove survival of the fittest ether, which this mentions, or how animals belonging to the same gene pool can mate with other animals making adaptions to their body. All dogs and cats are mixed breeds, and different nationalities have different traits skin, eyes, face ect. That change based on your partner in your gene pool. Our skin and body also will become more resilient to sun, or weather the longer we endure it. GOD's creation is awesome. Darwins theory is that this proves his theory. I already knew this. I know what your religion believes, this is what you think of as holy scripture. Now where is the proof that
germs=Human beings
germs= made creation matter and light
germs made germs or germs have always been. Matter can't create mater unless it's THE ALMIGHTY OMNIPOTENT GOD
I will begin to ask you questions knowing the answer to prove your religion is wrong if you want me too. But you said you have proof I know what you think but I want your proof. This is like a islam man posting Qu'ran saying "this this is proof!" I would tell him the same thing i'm telling you this isn't proof this is your theory I already knew your blasphemous cult theory. I would then ask for proof again so where is all your proof you speak of? (asking knowing the answer because I am a witness of GOD) Then if you want I can begin to ask you questions ( knowing the answers) to have blatantly show you the irrational and obscure view your'e being tricked into.
- Post 804 answering your post 803
Response to your post not liking this post
And Claiming all creatures are built a certain way to swim, run, fly ect. is clearly proof of GOD not that bacteria are constantly trying to evolve into human beings with the ability also to be monkeys, elephants, giraffe, ect. lol this is a horrible blaspheme theory based on the noticing how animals are all built in a certain way to pertaining to how they live? So instead realizing GOD made everything the way it is for a reason stars, sun, earth temp, earth spin, all the animals and your fingers and toes, body ect. Your religion says "that's impossible you have never seen that happened so believe something else you have never seen that people and animals constantly evolve from bacteria and we don't know anything else but this is right we are positive, and even though there is no bacteria forming into creatures or humans or anything in which would EVER suggest this, we have no evidence at all for this idea, but because all the other options are wrong because we say science doesn't support that a being can create things, because we haven't seen it.? Well science says your'e wrong because batter can't create something from nothing, Only THE CREATOR GOD can.

 

[Ceepea]

“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

― Sam Harris


You don't value evidence.

 

[Ceepea]

 

[ghostdriver]

Every marine Biologist knows what the Hen bone is and what it's used for it's not legs. It's a pelvic bone designed by GOD which helps in the mating.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp Doesn't list speculation it's listing facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus is very clear that some people THINK that, but that's not based off evidence.
Pakicetus is an extinct genus of amphibious cetacean of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to the Eocene of Pakistan.[1]The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale.
-If this was fact with real evidence all paleontologist would agree.Pakicetus was originally described as being a mesonychid, but later research reclassified it as an early cetacean due to characteristic features of the inner ear found only incetaceans; namely, the large auditory bulla is formed from theectotympanicbone only. It was then believed to be descended from mesonychids, according to Gingerich & Russell 1981. However, the redescription of the primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl Indohyus, and the discovery of its cetacean-like inner ear simultaneously put an end to the idea that whales were descended from mesonychids, while demonstrating that Pakicetus, and all other cetaceans, are artiodactyls. Thus, Pakicetus represents a transitional taxon between extinct land mammals and modern cetaceans.[4]
- Gingerich again but then corrects himself when he finds what he calls "new evidence" LOL
-Gingerich also from the 2001 November issue on the walking whales LOL which
It was illustrated on the cover of Science as a semiaquatic, vaguely crocodilelike mammal, diving after fish.[5]
- LOL completely not what it looks like on wikipedia
Somewhat more complete skeletal remains were discovered in 2001, prompting the view that Pakicetus was primarily a land animal about the size of a wolf, and very similar in form to the related mesonychids. Thewissen et al. 2001 wrote that "Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."[6]
However, Thewissen et al. 2009 argued that "the orbits ... of these cetaceans were located close together on top of the skull, as is common in aquatic animals that live in water but look at emerged objects. Just like Indohyus, limb bones of pakicetids areosteosclerotic, also suggestive of aquatic habitat"[7] (since heavy bones provide ballast). "This peculiarity could indicate thatPakicetus could stand in water, almost totally immersed, without losing visual contact with the air."[8]
The Pakicetus skeleton reveals several details regarding the creature's unique senses, and provides a newfound ancestral link between terrestrial and aquatic animals. As previously mentioned, the Pakicetus' upward-facing eye placement was a significant indication of its habitat. Even more so, however, was its auditory abilities. Like all other cetaceans, Pakicetus had a thickened skull bone known as the auditory bulla, which was specialized for underwater hearing.[9] Cetaceans also all categorically exhibit a large mandibular foramen within the lower jaw, which holds a fat pack and extends towards the ear, both of which are also associated with underwater hearing. "Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular foramen is small, as is the case in all terrestrial animals. It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial mammals. Thus the hearing mechanism of Pakicetus is the only known intermediate between that of land mammals and aquatic cetaceans."[10]With both the auditory and visual senses in mind, as well as the typical diet of Pakicetus, one might assume the
- Your basically reading this and thinking because this creature isn't just like another one, it's got to be in the middle of it evolving phase LOL
None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.) Pakicetus, which National Geographicdeclared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of whichPakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”[3] Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.
Do you think the duck billed platypus turning into a complete duck?
So your'e saying GOD can't create creation and has always been? but the Universe can create and has always been? That's literally believing in something that you claim is impossible.
"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous. The only reason GOD is before everything is because GOD is a living omnipotent being that you cannot fathom. Before the beginning GOD was."- page 43


I'm really bewildered how someone can ignore all evidence and revolve there existence based off from 6 skeletons that show no scientific evidence of mutation connecting the 6. Let alone the millions of others leading up to six, and all the other animals and contradictions of your darwin theory which is too broad to list.. This whole theory and religion around the skeletons of Pakicetus becoming a whale literally holds not factual evidence. Mere suggestion of thought. If wolverines were extinct no doubt you would claim that skeleton was leading to bears from the weasel family and was a early version of a bear. You would actually have a lot better case, but thankfully we know because they are both still around this would be a lie. Believe it or not animals species die off all the time, this doesn't mean they are some link in your evolutionary chain. The difference between the animals is beyond drastic, not a slow form evolution. Your saying these animals evolved like poke'mon over night, into a whole new complete species. You would have to have hundreds of slow evolving skeletons leading into these giant leaps of different creations which you compare to be the same. To suggest what you are saying as factual.


Praise THE ALMIGHTY GOD JUDGE over all things and HIS SON LORD JESUS CHRIST GOD over men's souls.

 

[Ceepea]

Every marine Biologist knows what the Hen bone is and what it's used for it's not legs. It's a pelvic bone designed by GOD which helps in the mating.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp Doesn't list speculation it's listing facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus is very clear that some people THINK that, but that's not based off evidence.
Pakicetus is an extinct genus of amphibious cetacean of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to the Eocene of Pakistan.[1]The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale.
-If this was fact with real evidence all paleontologist would agree.Pakicetus was originally described as being a mesonychid, but later research reclassified it as an early cetacean due to characteristic features of the inner ear found only incetaceans; namely, the large auditory bulla is formed from theectotympanicbone only. It was then believed to be descended from mesonychids, according to Gingerich & Russell 1981. However, the redescription of the primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl Indohyus, and the discovery of its cetacean-like inner ear simultaneously put an end to the idea that whales were descended from mesonychids, while demonstrating that Pakicetus, and all other cetaceans, are artiodactyls. Thus, Pakicetus represents a transitional taxon between extinct land mammals and modern cetaceans.[4]
- Gingerich again but then corrects himself when he finds what he calls "new evidence" LOL
-Gingerich also from the 2001 November issue on the walking whales LOL which
It was illustrated on the cover of Science as a semiaquatic, vaguely crocodilelike mammal, diving after fish.[5]
- LOL completely not what it looks like on wikipedia
Somewhat more complete skeletal remains were discovered in 2001, prompting the view that Pakicetus was primarily a land animal about the size of a wolf, and very similar in form to the related mesonychids. Thewissen et al. 2001 wrote that "Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."[6]
However, Thewissen et al. 2009 argued that "the orbits ... of these cetaceans were located close together on top of the skull, as is common in aquatic animals that live in water but look at emerged objects. Just like Indohyus, limb bones of pakicetids areosteosclerotic, also suggestive of aquatic habitat"[7] (since heavy bones provide ballast). "This peculiarity could indicate thatPakicetus could stand in water, almost totally immersed, without losing visual contact with the air."[8]
The Pakicetus skeleton reveals several details regarding the creature's unique senses, and provides a newfound ancestral link between terrestrial and aquatic animals. As previously mentioned, the Pakicetus' upward-facing eye placement was a significant indication of its habitat. Even more so, however, was its auditory abilities. Like all other cetaceans, Pakicetus had a thickened skull bone known as the auditory bulla, which was specialized for underwater hearing.[9] Cetaceans also all categorically exhibit a large mandibular foramen within the lower jaw, which holds a fat pack and extends towards the ear, both of which are also associated with underwater hearing. "Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular foramen is small, as is the case in all terrestrial animals. It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial mammals. Thus the hearing mechanism of Pakicetus is the only known intermediate between that of land mammals and aquatic cetaceans."[10]With both the auditory and visual senses in mind, as well as the typical diet of Pakicetus, one might assume the
- Your basically reading this and thinking because this creature isn't just like another one, it's got to be in the middle of it evolving phase LOL
None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.) Pakicetus, which National Geographicdeclared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of whichPakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”[3] Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.
Do you think the duck billed platypus turning into a complete duck?
So your'e saying GOD can't create creation and has always been? but the Universe can create and has always been? That's literally believing in something that you claim is impossible.
"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous. The only reason GOD is before everything is because GOD is a living omnipotent being that you cannot fathom. Before the beginning GOD was."- page 43


I'm really bewildered how someone can ignore all evidence and revolve there existence based off from 6 skeletons that show no scientific evidence of mutation connecting the 6. Let alone the millions of others leading up to six, and all the other animals and contradictions of your darwin theory which is too broad to list.. This whole theory and religion around the skeletons of Pakicetus becoming a whale literally holds not factual evidence. Mere suggestion of thought. If wolverines were extinct no doubt you would claim that skeleton was leading to bears from the weasel family and was a early version of a bear. You would actually have a lot better case, but thankfully we know because they are both still around this would be a lie. Believe it or not animals species die off all the time, this doesn't mean they are some link in your evolutionary chain. The difference between the animals is beyond drastic, not a slow form evolution. Your saying these animals evolved like poke'mon over night, into a whole new complete species. You would have to have hundreds of slow evolving skeletons leading into these giant leaps of different creations which you compare to be the same. To suggest what you are saying as factual.


Praise THE ALMIGHTY GOD JUDGE over all things and HIS SON LORD JESUS CHRIST GOD over men's souls.

You just quoted the Radical Islamist creationist again.

One fringe paper written by a joke of a scholar doesn't overturn the mountains of evidence that support evolution.

 

[ghostdriver]

Are you just going to ignore the facts about your religion being nothing more then a fictional suggestion that man has made with no evidence? Just theory filled with contradictions and illogical and obscure ideas that do not support one another?
Ignoring the facts and evidence and posting your propaganda over and over hoping to cover up my post that determined how your religion is one hundred percent fictional suggestion, and hoping someone will read your post because it's last and happen to miss my post which has already shown your religion for the fabrication that it is, is pitiful and a malicious intent on hiding the truth. Which seems to bring some sort of rage out in you.

 

[Ceepea]

Are you just going to ignore the facts about your religion being nothing more then a fictional suggestion that man has made with no evidence? Just theory filled with contradictions and illogical and obscure ideas that do not support one another?

I am ignoring what you post from that Radical Islamist creationist because he is a known fraud. Are you suggesting that I accept the opinion of a known fraud?

All the evidence I've posted directly support one another. They are from multiple fields of science and are virtually accepted by every scientist everywhere. It's hilarious you accuse me of posting the same stuff, but that's the 3rd time you've posted that article by Harun Yahya.

There's not even any evidence in his article, it's just a pathetic attempt at debunking evolution. lol

Ignoring the facts and evidence and posting your propaganda over and over hoping to cover up my post that determined how your religion is one hundred percent fictional suggestion, and hoping someone will read your post because it's last and happen to miss my post which has already shown your religion for the fabrication that it is, is pitiful and a malicious intent on hiding the truth. Which seems to bring some sort of rage out in you.

I'm not raging lol. I'm dispelling the lies you're spouting on here.

Anyone with half a brain can read your arguments, and compare them to my arguments. They can see my links, read the peer-reviewed articles I've posted, and all the other scientifically derived information I've posted.

Please keep posting the same nonsense, it just makes it easier to counter what you write. You're making this really easy! So... thanks!

 

[ghostdriver]

I don't want to live on the computer, but I assure you I can copy and paste answers I have given quickly if you continue to ask questions I have answered. Also further spam will result in being reported.
However if you have something I haven't already covered, I will be more then willing to answer any new questions.
This isn't a place for insults, egos, and spam. I ask that you all act in polite manner and don't sink to the level of insults when you get frustrated that everything you say is literally being broken down before you as false propaganda. By childish magazines like "national geographic" "science" and kids shows like "PBS" that can put anything they want in there magazine/show.

 

[Ceepea]

I don't want to live on the computer, but I assure you I can copy and paste answers I have given quickly if you continue to ask questions I have answered. Also further spam will result in being reported.
However if you have something I haven't already covered, I will be more then willing to answer any new questions.
This isn't a place for insults, egos, and spam. I ask that you all act in polite manner and don't sink to the level of insults when you get frustrated that everything you say is literally being broken down before you as false propaganda. By childish magazines like "national geographic" "science" and kids shows like "PBS" that can put anything they want in there magazine/show.

Lol... nice troll job.

 

[ghostdriver]

I never said I supported that mans religion, I just gave a link which explains the non existing evidence of what your trying to prove along with wikipedia and what everyone else in the world knows about "evidence of evolution" or "No evidence of evolution"

 

[ghostdriver]

I will be posting a lot more info and videos. I have a certain post which will be longer then any post so far.
Enjoy your summer everyone and rejoice that GOD is who GOD is. A loving Forgiving merciful GOD!
This is stuck in my head I LOVE IT! lol

So glad that little boy from Atlanta Georgia sang this song which made that pedophile release him. FEAR THE LORD
His correction and punishment is for our own good, His rod and staff comforts me, he makes me lay down in green pastures. Hallelujah!

 

[thepenofareadywriter]

I don't want to live on the computer, but I assure you I can copy and paste answers I have given quickly if you continue to ask questions I have answered. Also further spam will result in being reported.
However if you have something I haven't already covered, I will be more then willing to answer any new questions.
This isn't a place for insults, egos, and spam. I ask that you all act in polite manner and don't sink to the level of insults when you get frustrated that everything you say is literally being broken down before you as false propaganda. By childish magazines like "national geographic" "science" and kids shows like "PBS" that can put anything they want in there magazine/show.

insults like the one you threw at me in post #785 calling me a liar...like I said been there done that...

 

[thepenofareadywriter]

insults like the one you threw at me in post #785 calling me a liar...like I said been there done that...

https://www.rollitup.org/t/truth-about-god-and-me-my-story-my-testimony-my-findings.675556/#post-9278574 by the you shouldn't throw out insults try reading my post from a while back...and the interesting thing about truth it's recongizable

 

[Dislexicmidget2021]

Are you just going to ignore the facts about your religion being nothing more then a fictional suggestion that man has made with no evidence? Just theory filled with contradictions and illogical and obscure ideas that do not support one another?
Ignoring the facts and evidence and posting your propaganda over and over hoping to cover up my post that determined how your religion is one hundred percent fictional suggestion, and hoping someone will read your post because it's last and happen to miss my post which has already shown your religion for the fabrication that it is, is pitiful and a malicious intent on hiding the truth. Which seems to bring some sort of rage out in you.

How very ironic that you would say exactly that^.When you consistently demonstrate your hopeless inability to accept facts as they are and interject your own opinion on science while not demonstrating any real understanding of it whatsoever and while attempting to relay your "knowledge" you reject the fact that you really do not know what your talking about when it comes to proper reasoning in the world.It means you cant learn outside of your belief and refuse to grow as an individual,you just repeat the same old insanity as usual.You need to seek a shrink IMHO.But just go right ahead with more,you only further define to the rest us the extent of your delusional insanity with each post.