how to disprove the ''theory'' of evolution?

Question

breack them see they are all made from chalk
[plaster casts]
WHAT WERE THEY CAST FROM?
this is what science calls proof
can dna be extracted from chalk?
ok scratch the surface to see the chalk face of deceit
[dont break them they are works of the arts[black arts ] but works of art none the less
[any rebuttals}?

clearly most respondants cant have enough thought to rebut a simple point,

they claim to believe a complicated debate able theory of evolution yet fail to see that the actual casts they found thier belief upon are cast in plaster.

that though the plaster casts have a phenotypical appearance of sameness the fact they are but plaster copies of assemblages built up on looks like [thus must be]
give me a cast of a darwin finch that ''looks like'' a woodpecker ,going by the proof iside the plaster copy they is no possable rubutal but that the cast ''looks'' like a woodpecker ,yet from darwin we know was yet a finch

we have seen lucy was a construct enjoined from 3 different species , yet the plaster cast of this assemblage is yet offered as proof of evolution ,as a single cast
i have below me many simpltons who dont even have the intelligence to rebut a simple question, [ok questionable question] with any semblance of resoned rebutal
we have a mob attacking me indeed the first r

indeed the first rebuttal went so far as top post a link to this with his clever abuse yet still no rebuttal
a sure leader [a peer ] in this debate by mob rule ,who amoung those replies has revealed any scientific rebuttal of a simplistic statement
the evolutionists are deluded followers of fancifilled theories ,while thier educatrive standard may include the ability to parrot thier teachings with proper spelling they have not learned origonal thought
they have been formulated into the responses we see posted below ,and while the spelling is at a high standard , the abscence of factual , rebuttal combined with the ability to understand the meaning is too complex for simpltons
we have a theory ,backed up by seems to look like thus must be related ,but science has long realised there is more divergence within a given species than there is diference between species
thus we have unrelated non finches resembling finches ,its not science its fraud ,its not scientific fact its theory

Answer 1

You'd get a rebuttal if I had the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

Take your incoherent ramblings elsewhere please.

Answer 2

Ok.

1. Plaster casts were never alive, they're made of crushed rock called gypsum.

2. It is not alive, and is therefore not part of evolution.

As for the 'what were they cast from?'.... have you even noticed that plaster casts are created by mixing the dry chalk together with water and then allowed to dry till it hardens?

You really need to get a brain.

Answer 3

All the proof is there. Its called theory because we cant go back in time and check. Think about making a puzzle without knowing what the picture is. You somehow make the puzzle and it shows a clear picture. Is it right? We dont know what its supposed to be but it works like its supposed to. Is the puzzle wrong because we have no proof (the starting picture) to see, even though all the pieces fit?

Answer 4

I see what youre saying. The molds and plaster casts that the evolutionists made of the fossilized record do not contain any dna.. the imagination used by the evolutionists would make walt disney look like a prebubescent ameoba.

Answer 5

@Dragonrider: Wouldn't it help to have a clue before mouthing off? We ARE still evolving, and so are all other living things - it just takes millions of years before the changes become significant enough to be obvious and visible.

It's just the same as animal breeders, but waay slower. Chihuahuas were forcibly 'evolved' from wolves by humans. That's a lot faster, but it still takes many generations.

CD

Answer 6

Well, that settles it. There aren't any antibiotic resistant bacteria after all. It's just satanic propaganda.

I was afraid that natural selection might actually have validity, or that god might endow us with a potential to think logically and objectively, rather than relying on the multitude of religious faiths.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Answer 7

(ROFL, "oh dear" XD)

To disprove the theory of evolution, you've got to find evidence that refutes it. Good ******** luck, creationists have been at that task for millenia, and they've made no progress whatsoever. Face it, the ToE is here to stay. It's as likely to be completely overturned as gravity. :)

Answer 8

OMG you did it! Somone finally disproved evolution, wow! And your theory replacing evolution: People who believe in evolution are made from chalk?

Answer 9

do you think you can disprove theory of evolution??? lots of scientists have been debating it for a long time, and now you...mr whoever comes and beats them all!!!
wow why arent you included in science books???

Answer 10

I've heard of this strategy: Say a random string of words, and pretend it proves a point. Then claim success when it can not be refuted.

Answer 11

Are you presently scratching all this onto your forearm with a compass? Seek help! Seek help!