Evolution is a racist doctrine

4.Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.I win, Jar and almost all evolutionists refuse to answer questions, and refuse to participate in the topic, that evolution is a racist doctrine.We can put this proven thread in Summation mode even though I am not allowed to start any new victorious provable threads.SUMMATION MODE PLEASE.

We have refuted your nonsense, and shown your preaching to be false.You lose. Again.

We are still waiting for you to explain why evolution is racist.

And there you go lying yet again.This happens to be a topic YOU started. You asserted that " Evolution is a racist doctrine " yet you have provided absolutely NO support for that utterly stupid assertion while 28 people have responded to you showing why your assertion is simply false, ignorant and sophomoric.You do understand David that folk can actually read the thread and see that you once again utterly failed to support or even discuss your own topic?What a loser!

That actually might be a good idea.

Except you have never reinforced your claim. Stating your false claim over and over and over does nothing to strengthen it. It just shows us that you really have nothing to support your claim. Read this out loud to yourself a couple times. Notice the problem?What is obvious and common sense is that you do not know how to express anything obvious or common sense. Really, THIS is common sense? Ignorance and stupidity is the cornerstone of Davidjay's argument.You say "evolution is a racist doctrine" and we say "how, show us?" and you say a whole bunch of gibberish and then "evolution is a racist doctrine" and we disagree and say"how, show us?"See the problem yet?So far all we have from you is "blah blah jesus blah blah".For a preacher, you are the worst communicator I have ever seen.Oh yeah, we win you lose! Loser!Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

No one said we came from tree shrews. I'm going to begin suspending you for 24 hours each time you make this statement, or any statement clearly at odds with what people have said.

Now that you've won, can we end this? Summation mode. Please.

Evolutionists dont know where we came from, so evade the question....and use semantics to cover up their huge gaps in their theory.Their trees are artists conceptions and do NOT show what evolved from what, but rather groups which should have existed and possibly have parented other groups. Its full of MISSING LINKS and their tree branching is just a classification system of maube might have, could have been ancestors, that might have could be or might be found, but sadly all went extionct or were just imaginations of an evolutionists mind. This is why they debate classifications endlessly among themselves...why because they have no proofs, no cause and effect, no parentage lineage.
Its just semantics as mentioned..... well call this branch para-primates, because there is no animal called paraprimates, its just a label, a make-believe group of animals that should have been around to form future primates.First they say primates came from bats, then tree shrews

You realise that you're heading for a ban don't you? What kind idiot does the same idiotic thing twice knowing the consequencies?A big one I guess.

Intentionally repeating a comment that has been shown to be a false portrayal of what people have said is a lie. Says the person ignorant of genetics and morphology.Amusingly what the discussion involves is decent from a common ancestor, just as creationists claim all life descended from original kinds. They are scared to actually look at what those original kinds look like in the fossil and genetic records, scared to follow their belief.Creationists should welcome the effort scientists put into developing clades of descent, because that is exactly how descent from original kinds would occur, but they are scared that the evidence will not validate their beliefs, so they mock and chide and dissemble and lie. Please provide the names and descriptions for all the purported original kinds, and then show how species alive today descended from those original kinds.Davidjay never provides real answers to questions posed to him, just another non-sequitur diversion. You can check this out by looking at the index for each thread, a tool that also shows his frequent claim of never being answered to be another falsehood.

Where did humans come from Raz ?

The earliest Homo sapiens fossils found to date are from Ethiopia from about 200,000 years ago.Technically "Humans" (genus Homo) evolved from Australopithicines, an extinct type of ape very similar to the first species of the Homo clade (ergaster and habilis).

quote:

---

Human Evolution

​

Under the current taxonomy (based on genetic rather than behavioral criteria), the term "hominid" refers to members of the biological human family Hominidae: living humans, all human ancestors, the many extinct members of Australopithecus, and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla.

​

​

The chart ... shows the evolutionary chronology inputed to these biological branches. Ardipithecus, the common primate ancestor to paranthropines, australopithecines and humans, went extinct about 4 million years ago.

​

Human evolution is a puzzle made up of thousands of fossil pieces. The Chart of Human Evolution (below) shows the major pieces of that puzzle arranged in a likely solution.

​

The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.

​

---

Our ancestor apes would have evolved from common ancestor population of ancient apes that we share with chimps, an ancestor ape, probably similar to Ardipithicus ramidus.Enjoy

No one said primates came from bats or tree shrews. As I said when I suspended you previously, I will suspend you each time you make significant misstatements of what people have said. This time I'm suspending you for 48 hours.

Well, many have already corrected you that this was never stated. And you have been banned twice for repeating it.But when (if) you return, please view the following graphic: Do you see the branches for humans? Do you also see the branches for bats? Do you see ANY line that shows humans deriving from bats?Of course you don't. Because you are simply a Christian Troll. And if you want to troll, that is your prerogative. But that will simply result in more suspensions.