# According to science, how does a new species develop?



## Votto

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


----------



## aaronleland

Science is for retards. Obviously God created two people. Then there was this talking snake. Some other shit happened. It was this whole mess.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Biology (High School) 10 edition (9780133669510) - Textbooks.com


----------



## cnm

Votto said:


> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


The 'mutations' have to be inheritable through mating for a new species to develop.


----------



## Inmar

If one of the mating eats genetically modified food, then mutations will undoubtedly be. The next generations will definitely grow a third ear. On the forehead.


----------



## Two Thumbs

how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?


----------



## westwall

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?










Mutations occur all of the time.  Most are benign and do nothing.  Every now and then the mutation kills the critter, and even more rarely the mutation does nothing until some outside event comes along that makes that mutation important.  The other critters vying for that particular niche die out because they lack that particular mutation, while the mutated critter takes over the niche.  That is how evolution works.


----------



## cnm

Two Thumbs said:


> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?


I think your terminology may be confusing you. In any case...

How and why single cell organisms evolved into multicellular life


----------



## deanrd

Dogs can be bred for traits.  We know dogs came from wolves.  Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough.  The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua.  Obviously through artificial insemination.  Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation.  It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
The transitions are all through nature.  Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile.  Typical among species that have diverged.  The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.

Usually Republicans come up with "kind".  A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.


----------



## alang1216

Votto said:


> Well?
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


Mutations are not required.  What you need is isolation.  If a mountain rises and splits a population into two, over time natural variations will change the two populations in different ways.  Given enough time the two populations will not interbreed, even if the mountain is removed.  Bingo, two species.


----------



## Votto

deanrd said:


> Dogs can be bred for traits.  We know dogs came from wolves.  Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough.  The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua.  Obviously through artificial insemination.  Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
> Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation.  It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
> The transitions are all through nature.  Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile.  Typical among species that have diverged.  The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.
> 
> Usually Republicans come up with "kind".  A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.



And that is one of my questions.

if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?

I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.

Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?


----------



## alang1216

Votto said:


> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?


The donkey and horse have a common ancestor but have diverged.  They can still mate and produce viable offspring but there enough genetic difference that the offspring are sterile.  What you're seeing is a snapshot in the process of the formation of new species (donkey and horse).


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Two Thumbs said:


> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?




 Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.




Votto said:


> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?


Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.

While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Votto said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs can be bred for traits.  We know dogs came from wolves.  Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough.  The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua.  Obviously through artificial insemination.  Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
> Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation.  It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
> The transitions are all through nature.  Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile.  Typical among species that have diverged.  The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.
> 
> Usually Republicans come up with "kind".  A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is one of my questions.
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.
> 
> Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?
Click to expand...

*Who Is Actually Sapient Among the Homo Sapiens?*

The n00bi's get treated like weirdos.  Out of revenge, they eventually rise up, assert their fitness, and exterminate the unevolved masses.


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


You don’t get to ask that question. Right now NASA has plans to send probes to Europa and three other places where the three things necessary for life I think it was water energy and biology....


The point is these missions are shelved because you don’t care to know. Almost like you’d be sad to find life somewhere else


----------



## Votto

sealybobo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the unobserved theory.

I'll just take in on faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.


Ridiculously false...it is supported by all of the evidence, and all of the evidence is mutually supportive. So, if you are "taking it on faith", then you know less than nothing about this topic


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
Click to expand...

You just sit around waiting for Armageddon. Meanwhile these scientists you doubt are looking for incoming meteors and will hopefully one day delay gods will and divert it because your prayers wont


----------



## Two Thumbs

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
Click to expand...

hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?


why would a cell divide into predator and prey?


----------



## sealybobo

Two Thumbs said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
Click to expand...

We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Votto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
Click to expand...

*Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*

Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.

For example, the fact that those who survived the World Trade Center atrocity could not be called "the fittest," so why should we believe that Darwinian change is an improvement?


----------



## Votto

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*
> 
> Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.
Click to expand...


It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Votto said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*
> 
> Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
Click to expand...

*Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*

The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.


----------



## sealybobo

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*
> 
> Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*
> 
> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
Click to expand...

In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.

And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Two Thumbs said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
Click to expand...

Your question is nonsensical, sorry. Is it a joke? Is there a punchline?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Sage of Main Street said:


> For example, the fact that those who survived the World Trade Center atrocity could not be called "the fittest," so why should we believe that Darwinian change is an improvement?


Who said natural selection always improved anything? It merely changes things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Sage of Main Street said:


> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved


...said the denier on his quantum mechanical machine, with his message being sent via fiber optics reliant on electromagnetic theory and satellites reliant on relativity theory...


----------



## Votto

sealybobo said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*
> 
> Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*
> 
> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
> 
> And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
Click to expand...


What science is being denied?


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> *Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*
> 
> Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*
> 
> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
> 
> And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What science is being denied?
Click to expand...


That's hard to say.  Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.  

Basic facts like when a group of individuals *is* separated from the rest of their *species* for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group *is* isolated from the rest of the *species*, the more likely it *will* evolve into a *new species*.

     The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. *Geographic isolation* seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.

2     When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.


----------



## james bond

It boils down to sex and the pairing of genetic information.  Sexually reproducing organisms and their offspring have their genetic information or chromosomes in pairs, and the offspring inherit half from the mother, half from the father.  So there are two genes at a given position coding for a particular characteristic.  An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different _alleles_ of this gene.  For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type.  Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele is dominant and has effect on the organism, while the other is recessive and does not.  These sexual pairings allow for faster diversification of species and does not depend on mutation.  Mutation is considered a process to remove defective organisms since species were more perfect at one time and the mutation process made the organisms less sturdy.  It's evolution in reverse.  One evidence for rapid evolution and not of mutation is the antibiotic and pesticide resistance of bacteria and insects and pests.  Changes to species is rapid and is based on genetics, environment and epigentics not mutation.


----------



## Two Thumbs

sealybobo said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain
Click to expand...

why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question is nonsensical, sorry. Is it a joke? Is there a punchline?
Click to expand...

that moment when you realize you are in a humor thread and lack a sense of humor.


----------



## Votto

sealybobo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*
> 
> Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*
> 
> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
> 
> And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What science is being denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard to say.  Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
> 
> Basic facts like when a group of individuals *is* separated from the rest of their *species* for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group *is* isolated from the rest of the *species*, the more likely it *will* evolve into a *new species*.
> 
> The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. *Geographic isolation* seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
> 
> 2     When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
Click to expand...


Everyone wonders how new species come about, much like everyone wonders how the first cell formed or where matter comes from.

The bottom line, however, is that It is all pure speculation based upon the best educated guess.

None of this has been observed nor duplicated yet it does not give you pause in accepting it as 100% truth.

Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.


----------



## EGR one

westwall said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations occur all of the time.  Most are benign and do nothing.  Every now and then the mutation kills the critter, and even more rarely the mutation does nothing until some outside event comes along that makes that mutation important.  The other critters vying for that particular niche die out because they lack that particular mutation, while the mutated critter takes over the niche.  That is how evolution works.
Click to expand...


Why would a viable critter die out just because a new model developed?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

cnm said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your terminology may be confusing you. In any case...
> 
> How and why single cell organisms evolved into multicellular life
Click to expand...

LOL

What a joke

The odds of the little molecules randomly bumping together to form a single cell are mathematically impossible.  A simple single cell contains 2,000 separate proteins. The odds of 2,000 proteins, which are themselves complex, forming a functioning cell is a number with 5,700 zeros to 1.

Impossible. Didn't happen

The video goes on to say that single cells banded together to avoid predators, don't laugh, and one day they decided to stick together forming a multi celled badass

Wow


----------



## sealybobo

Two Thumbs said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?
Click to expand...

Clay and clingy mold dna and micro organisms that like those rocks were cooked up in stars that exploded billions of years ago.

Or god did it. Which explanation seems more likely to you?


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
> 
> 
> 
> *Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*
> 
> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
> 
> And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What science is being denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard to say.  Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
> 
> Basic facts like when a group of individuals *is* separated from the rest of their *species* for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group *is* isolated from the rest of the *species*, the more likely it *will* evolve into a *new species*.
> 
> The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. *Geographic isolation* seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
> 
> 2     When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wonders how new species come about, much like everyone wonders how the first cell formed or where matter comes from.
> 
> The bottom line, however, is that It is all pure speculation based upon the best educated guess.
> 
> None of this has been observed nor duplicated yet it does not give you pause in accepting it as 100% truth.
> 
> Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.
Click to expand...

I don’t accept it as 100%. But I’ve seen enough science to conclude my hypothesis. And it has been duplicated in a lab. Now wait 2 million years to see what happens. You just proved you don’t really understand the science because you can’t replicate something that takes millions of years although we’ve done a hell of a job with dogs

Your side tells us all the facts are in your holy books. Do you buy that?


----------



## harmonica

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> View attachment 183169


All living things magically appeared.  

Forget the fact that 99% of every species have gone extinct. Those were god mistakes.


----------



## westwall

EGR one said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations occur all of the time.  Most are benign and do nothing.  Every now and then the mutation kills the critter, and even more rarely the mutation does nothing until some outside event comes along that makes that mutation important.  The other critters vying for that particular niche die out because they lack that particular mutation, while the mutated critter takes over the niche.  That is how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a viable critter die out just because a new model developed?
Click to expand...







Because the new critter is able to compete better for the particular niche they are both fighting for.  Remember, Mother Nature doesn't "like" or "dislike" her critters, she merely gives them a chance and those that are better and more efficient survive.  Those that aren't....don't.  It's simply numbers.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Votto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
> 
> 
> 
> *Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*
> 
> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
> 
> And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What science is being denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard to say.  Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
> 
> Basic facts like when a group of individuals *is* separated from the rest of their *species* for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group *is* isolated from the rest of the *species*, the more likely it *will* evolve into a *new species*.
> 
> The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. *Geographic isolation* seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
> 
> 2     When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.
Click to expand...


*Escapist Vindictive Nerds Immersed in Superhero Fantasies*

That's what scientists claim to be doing, but it's all propaganda to make themselves look good.  For one thing, they are selective about what they test and observe.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

CrusaderFrank said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your terminology may be confusing you. In any case...
> 
> How and why single cell organisms evolved into multicellular life
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a joke
> 
> The odds of the little molecules randomly bumping together to form a single cell are mathematically impossible.  A simple single cell contains 2,000 separate proteins. The odds of 2,000 proteins, which are themselves complex, forming a functioning cell is a number with 5,700 zeros to 1.
> 
> Impossible. Didn't happen
> 
> The video goes on to say that single cells banded together to avoid predators, don't laugh, and one day they decided to stick together forming a multi celled badass
> 
> Wow
Click to expand...

*OLD SCHOOL:  Determination
MILLENNIALS:  Terminal*

So it can't be the passive product of random events, even though drugs will make people accept that.  It has to be intelligent self-design.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Everyone wonders how new species come about,


Not everyone...  Only those who didn't take 9th grade biology, or didn't pay attention when they did....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

EGR one said:


> Why would a viable critter die out just because a new model developed


Easy! Because that "new model" takes over the "viable critter's" niche, or because the new model was a new adaptation to the "viable critter's" food, robbing it of its food source. Or maybe the "new model" is a pathogen that decimates the population of the "viable critter". There are plenty of reasons you can come up with.


----------



## Votto

CrusaderFrank said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your terminology may be confusing you. In any case...
> 
> How and why single cell organisms evolved into multicellular life
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a joke
> 
> The odds of the little molecules randomly bumping together to form a single cell are mathematically impossible.  A simple single cell contains 2,000 separate proteins. The odds of 2,000 proteins, which are themselves complex, forming a functioning cell is a number with 5,700 zeros to 1.
> 
> Impossible. Didn't happen
> 
> The video goes on to say that single cells banded together to avoid predators, don't laugh, and one day they decided to stick together forming a multi celled badass
> 
> Wow
Click to expand...


This is my personal favorite.


----------



## Votto

sealybobo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything*
> 
> The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved.  They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
> 
> And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What science is being denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard to say.  Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
> 
> Basic facts like when a group of individuals *is* separated from the rest of their *species* for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group *is* isolated from the rest of the *species*, the more likely it *will* evolve into a *new species*.
> 
> The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. *Geographic isolation* seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
> 
> 2     When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wonders how new species come about, much like everyone wonders how the first cell formed or where matter comes from.
> 
> The bottom line, however, is that It is all pure speculation based upon the best educated guess.
> 
> None of this has been observed nor duplicated yet it does not give you pause in accepting it as 100% truth.
> 
> Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t accept it as 100%. But I’ve seen enough science to conclude my hypothesis. And it has been duplicated in a lab. Now wait 2 million years to see what happens. You just proved you don’t really understand the science because you can’t replicate something that takes millions of years although we’ve done a hell of a job with dogs
> 
> Your side tells us all the facts are in your holy books. Do you buy that?
Click to expand...


What science have you conducted or observed to make you form your hypothesis?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

harmonica said:


> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169


If you don't believe our impossible, failed theory...


----------



## harmonica

let me put it this way:
...you don't believe a single cell could just ''appear''---it* ISN'T* possible---can't be replicated/etc
...but you believe MILLIONS of single cells organized into a complicated being just ''appearing'' *IS *possible??


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
> 
> And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What science is being denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard to say.  Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
> 
> Basic facts like when a group of individuals *is* separated from the rest of their *species* for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group *is* isolated from the rest of the *species*, the more likely it *will* evolve into a *new species*.
> 
> The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. *Geographic isolation* seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
> 
> 2     When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wonders how new species come about, much like everyone wonders how the first cell formed or where matter comes from.
> 
> The bottom line, however, is that It is all pure speculation based upon the best educated guess.
> 
> None of this has been observed nor duplicated yet it does not give you pause in accepting it as 100% truth.
> 
> Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t accept it as 100%. But I’ve seen enough science to conclude my hypothesis. And it has been duplicated in a lab. Now wait 2 million years to see what happens. You just proved you don’t really understand the science because you can’t replicate something that takes millions of years although we’ve done a hell of a job with dogs
> 
> Your side tells us all the facts are in your holy books. Do you buy that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What science have you conducted or observed to make you form your hypothesis?
Click to expand...

Educate yourself


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169



That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.

On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.

Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
Click to expand...

no I'm not wrong
non-evolutionist must believe a fully formed man just ''appeared''--was ''produced''
they don't believe a single cell could be produced


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
Click to expand...

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
is this what you saying???


----------



## harmonica

> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials


you are saying what I am saying!!!!!!!!!!hahahah  WTF??
how is a complex man with MILLIONS of cells produced if creationists don't believe a SINGLE cell can be produced ????!!!!
..so man was produced from living materials??
please explain this theory of yours in detail
..and then we have baby jesus magically produced?? explain that one also


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

*Power Doesn't Give Authority
*
The mind masters force on us a choice between only between Darwin's chaos-with-a-goal and Creationism.  Students and their gurus defend Darwinism desperately because they feel that if he is rejected, theology will replace science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Power Doesn't Give Authority
> *
> The mind masters force on us a choice between only between Darwin's chaos-with-a-goal and Creationism.  Students and their gurus defend Darwinism desperately because they feel that if he is rejected, theology will replace science.


I suggest you never mention Darwin or evolution again, because your comments show that you know less than nothing about either.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
Click to expand...


If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
Click to expand...

2 points.  

First, why do you believe cells cannot be created naturally?  Cells are likely the product of several BILLION years of evolution.  They are not the first life, it was much, much simpler.  Essentially once the first life could grow and reproduce it became subject to evolution.

Second, we can both create and destroy atoms, converting them from one element into another.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
Click to expand...

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
Click to expand...

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.


----------



## Two Thumbs

sealybobo said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clay and clingy mold dna and micro organisms that like those rocks were cooked up in stars that exploded billions of years ago.
> 
> Or god did it. Which explanation seems more likely to you?
Click to expand...

neither


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Two Thumbs said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cells don't give birth, they divide.  One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.
> 
> 
> Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.
> 
> While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clay and clingy mold dna and micro organisms that like those rocks were cooked up in stars that exploded billions of years ago.
> 
> Or god did it. Which explanation seems more likely to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither
Click to expand...

Sissy cop out


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?
> 
> 
> why would a cell divide into predator and prey?
> 
> 
> 
> We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clay and clingy mold dna and micro organisms that like those rocks were cooked up in stars that exploded billions of years ago.
> 
> Or god did it. Which explanation seems more likely to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sissy cop out
Click to expand...

Well the truth is more amazing than any story made up in any storybook. Like for example how the Big Bang happened. Or how first generation stars had to explode in order to make planets moons gold iron and even people. What’s easier to understand 5000 years or 13.6 billion?

But nowhere in space are there angels, demons, ghosts, devils or gods. It’s too cold.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
Click to expand...


That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
Click to expand...


Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.


Of course it can...where do you get this nonsense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> . The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.


Haha...man, you certainly are delusional. All of biology only makes sense in the light of evolution. It is the strongest scientific theory ever produced by mankind. It is supported by all of the evidence -- with more found each day -- and all of the evidence is mutually supportive.

That would explain why you deniers are relegated to the blogosphere and are not producing any science whatsoever.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...man, you certainly are delusional. All of biology only makes sense in the light of evolution. It is the strongest scientific theory ever produced by mankind. It is supported by all of the evidence -- with more found each day -- and all of the evidence is mutually supportive.
> 
> That would explain why you deniers are relegated to the blogosphere and are not producing any science whatsoever.
Click to expand...


It just goes to show that you do not understand science and the tree of life.  Even non-creation scientists rip Darwin over the tree of life.  That is FACT.

Creation scientists were forced to go to their own websites because they were heavily discriminated against, i.e. they could lose their funding, jobs, tenure, promotion, etc.  Another FACT.  

We are discussing origins and evolution is wrong about origins.  Because if they're right, then we would find life elsewhere besides planet earth.  However, we can't find a microbe in our entire solar system.  There are no aliens, either.  Check out Fermi's Paradox.  

And sure, I keep up.  You didn't mention any examples or bring up other topics of discussion.  Today, I found out that my evolution website from UC Berkeley opposes GMO and genetic engineering.  While other scientists think GMO foods are safe.  I'm on the side that GMO foods are not safe and should be labeled.  I try ot eat organic and non-GMO when I can.  However, I can't tell if some food is GMO, especially in restaurants.  In the supermarket, more foods are labeled non-GMO or organic, so buy those instead of cereals, chips, canned foods, processed foods, packaged meals, etc.  Farmed fish from Asian countries may not be good either.  Depends where in Asia..


----------



## james bond

IsaacNewton said:


> Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.



How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months?  Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory.  It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory.  Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old.  If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded.  Here's an example of their circular thinking.  There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old.  Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years.  Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online.  Then we'll see this change being made.  It just fits their evo thinking.  What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas?  Then the results would be wrong.  Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning.  You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning.  Just saying.


----------



## IsaacNewton

james bond said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months?  Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory.  It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory.  Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old.  If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded.  Here's an example of their circular thinking.  There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old.  Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years.  Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online.  Then we'll see this change being made.  It just fits their evo thinking.  What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas?  Then the results would be wrong.  Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning.  You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning.  Just saying.
Click to expand...


A cacophony of gibberish. To try to equate anything today with what happened 3 billion years ago is utterly nonsensical. There was no oxygen, that took billions of years of microscopic organisms using photosynthesis, which itself took one or two billion years to evolve, to oxygenate the atmosphere. 

This is why I hesitate joining threads like this on a message board, ignorance and opinion are not in the same galaxy as education and fact. But people on a message board think they are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Even non-creation scientists rip Darwin over the tree of life. That is FACT.


No it isn't.  Where DO you get ths nonsense?

Here is a tree of life that EVERY biologist agrees upon, save for some minor disputes:





And oh, here is another:







james bond said:


> Creation scientists were forced to go to their own websites because they were heavily discriminated against,


haha, what a bunch of embarrassing nonsense. You REALLY are not getting this. Let's try again:

 There is "science", and there is "not science".  The "creation science" you made up is *not science. * This fully explains why people like you are relegated to screaming into echo chambers in the blogosphere.


james bond said:


> We are discussing origins and evolution is wrong about origins.



You are embarrassing yourself. Evolution only speaks to how the diversity of species arose from the first life. It does not speak to how the first life arose.


james bond said:


> Today, I found out that my evolution website from UC Berkeley opposes GMO and genetic engineering.



So what?  The opinion of a blogger means exactly *fuck all. *The same goes for your 'creation science"  frauds.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

IsaacNewton said:


> A cacophony of gibberish.


But, you must understand, this is like the Superbowl for denier losers like him.  This, right here, is the absolute pinnacle that will be reached for a foolish creationist and his charlatan's tactics.  They will never publish any science to support their nonsense, and will never gain any acknowledgment in any serious circles.  _ALL THEY HAVE _is self-aggrandizing message board/blog masturbation like this.  So, sit back and enjoy his "A-Game"...


....bhwahahahahahaaaa


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
Click to expand...

...so you think a single cell being ''created'' is much more unbelievable than a complex man with millions of cells being created......no, creation makes 0 sense


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months?  Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory.  It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory.  Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old.  If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded.  Here's an example of their circular thinking.  There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old.  Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years.  Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online.  Then we'll see this change being made.  It just fits their evo thinking.  What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas?  Then the results would be wrong.  Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning.  You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning.  Just saying.
Click to expand...

do you or do you not believe a fully formed man was created/just appeared/etc??
what is your theory?--for the last time


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months?  Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory.  It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory.  Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old.  If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded.  Here's an example of their circular thinking.  There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old.  Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years.  Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online.  Then we'll see this change being made.  It just fits their evo thinking.  What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas?  Then the results would be wrong.  Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning.  You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning.  Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you or do you not believe a fully formed man was created/just appeared/etc??
> what is your theory?--for the last time
Click to expand...

 
If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.  We are like God in that he admires and appreciates perfection.  If someone achieves perfection or near perfection in a fallen world, then it is broadcast throughout the world.  Perfection is holiness.


----------



## alang1216

harmonica said:


> ...so you think a single cell being ''created'' is much more unbelievable than a complex man with millions of cells being created......no, creation makes 0 sense


Go look up 'straw man' because this is one.  Cells are the product of billions of years of evolution.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months?  Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory.  It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory.  Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old.  If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded.  Here's an example of their circular thinking.  There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old.  Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years.  Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online.  Then we'll see this change being made.  It just fits their evo thinking.  What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas?  Then the results would be wrong.  Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning.  You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning.  Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you or do you not believe a fully formed man was created/just appeared/etc??
> what is your theory?--for the last time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.  We are like God in that he admires and appreciates perfection.  If someone achieves perfection or near perfection in a fallen world, then it is broadcast throughout the world.  Perfection is holiness.
Click to expand...

..so you do believe a fully formed man and woman just ''appeared''/were created
...you think a full formed complex human with millions of cells being created is more believable than 1 single cell being created
....so your theory is god just created man and not a single cell
if that is your belief fine--but don't try to say a single cell being created/appearing is less believable .....
...or the chance of a single cell being created is less than a creator creating a fully formed man/etc......it is not


----------



## Syriusly

Votto said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs can be bred for traits.  We know dogs came from wolves.  Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough.  The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua.  Obviously through artificial insemination.  Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
> Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation.  It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
> The transitions are all through nature.  Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile.  Typical among species that have diverged.  The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.
> 
> Usually Republicans come up with "kind".  A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is one of my questions.
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.
> 
> Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?
Click to expand...


'real science, which is observation'

In other words you are not interested in real science.


----------



## Syriusly

Votto said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the unobserved theory.
> 
> I'll just take in on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century*
> 
> Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
Click to expand...


And of course that belief came from observation......


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
Click to expand...


LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.


----------



## Syriusly

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing origins and evolution is wrong about origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself. Evolution only speaks to how the diversity of species arose from the first life. It does not speak to how the first life arose..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah that is a regular straw man when it comes to the Evolution deniers.
> 
> Evolution describes how life changes- it doesn't describe where the first life began.
> 
> My only quibble about the "Tree of Life" is that there are those who object to the metaphor.
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.









For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


----------



## emilynghiem

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?



Dear Votto
I think deanrd said it best.
It's not so much being created
but being developed. And it's whenever
humans "label" or "identify" something as a separate
species, then it takes that on.

As for mating, horses and donkeys mate to create "mules"
is that really a different species? Or a "cross" between a horse and a donkey?

Isn't it just because humans created our own criteria for labeling things that we determine what is close enough to be called the same species, and when we decide they are two different species?

Nowadays, those criteria can get blurred for social cultural or even political reasons.

We only had 2 genders, and now people are arguing for 58.
Did we really evolve or are we just changing how we define
what constitutes a different gender?

When forests are threatened with mass destruction,
suddenly more species pop up that depend on that ecosystem
to survive. Weren't those there all along, but we just didn't discover them until we disturbed their homes and did research to assess the damage and impact of further manmade intervention?

Who knows what all species live in the deepest wilderness or under the depths of the oceans? And which come from creation, evolution, mating or mutation?

Aren't we just labeling species for our own reference anyway.
If the system changes as much as gender has, isn't really only fixed based on where we AGREE to draw the lines?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.


Haha, nice hedge....

"It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."

"I said perfect"

"What the fuck does that mean?"

"You just don't get it"


----------



## bripat9643

aaronleland said:


> Science is for retards. Obviously God created two people. Then there was this talking snake. Some other shit happened. It was this whole mess.


I don't agree with creationism, but your an imbecile.


----------



## bripat9643

alang1216 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are not required.  What you need is isolation.  If a mountain rises and splits a population into two, over time natural variations will change the two populations in different ways.  Given enough time the two populations will not interbreed, even if the mountain is removed.  Bingo, two species.
Click to expand...

Yes, mutations are required.  "natural variation" is the result of mutations.


----------



## aaronleland

bripat9643 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is for retards. Obviously God created two people. Then there was this talking snake. Some other shit happened. It was this whole mess.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with creationism, but your an imbecile.
Click to expand...


Am not.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
Click to expand...


It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
Click to expand...


Superman comics also sell well.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, nice hedge....
> 
> "It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."
> 
> "I said perfect"
> 
> "What the fuck does that mean?"
> 
> "You just don't get it"
Click to expand...


What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.


----------



## Selivan

A lot of chatter and no conclusions.
Typical "Americans"


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
Click to expand...

I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton?? 
...you don't get it do you?
it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, nice hedge....
> 
> "It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."
> 
> "I said perfect"
> 
> "What the fuck does that mean?"
> 
> "You just don't get it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.
Click to expand...

That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, nice hedge....
> 
> "It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."
> 
> "I said perfect"
> 
> "What the fuck does that mean?"
> 
> "You just don't get it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.
Click to expand...


You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about.  There was an unimpeachable witness.

The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> 
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
> a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
> ...you don't get it do you?
> it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
> ....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land
Click to expand...


Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell.  It's impossible.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
> a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
> ...you don't get it do you?
> it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
> ....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell.  It's impossible.
Click to expand...

are you trolling?
so it's impossible for a single cell to appear--but possible for millions to appear in a complex human???!!!!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.



Which you can't demonstrate because you do not have the cred.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
> a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
> ...you don't get it do you?
> it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
> ....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell.  It's impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you trolling?
> so it's impossible for a single cell to appear--but possible for millions to appear in a complex human???!!!!
Click to expand...


You don't make much sense.  I said a protein cannot be created OUTSIDE a cell.  Do you know what a protein is?  I just explained it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, nice hedge....
> 
> "It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."
> 
> "I said perfect"
> 
> "What the fuck does that mean?"
> 
> "You just don't get it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about.  There was an unimpeachable witness.
> 
> The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.
Click to expand...

There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen. 

Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Which you can't demonstrate because you do not have the cred.


Of course I can. Any 4 year old with Google can demonstrate that you are lying.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
Click to expand...


Of course that is what simpletons like you believe. 

You believe because lots of people buy the Bible.....well that makes 'Creation' real. 

And by the way- when a Christian is speaking of 'Creation Science' it is just a mealy mouth way of saying "Our Christian God created it" with no basis in science or fact- but your belief in fairy tales.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.



I noticed the internet fairy tale believer didn't respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.








For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


----------



## deanrd

Votto said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs can be bred for traits.  We know dogs came from wolves.  Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough.  The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua.  Obviously through artificial insemination.  Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
> Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation.  It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
> The transitions are all through nature.  Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile.  Typical among species that have diverged.  The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.
> 
> Usually Republicans come up with "kind".  A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is one of my questions.
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.
> 
> Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?
Click to expand...

I explained it in a previous post.  What is wrong with you?  Can't even a simply explanation "take"?

A mule isn't a new species.  The separate species are the donkey and the horse.  A million years ago, there wasn't two, just one.  And the fact that the mule even exists is the proof of divergence.

It can't be explained any more simple.  Either you learn or you refuse.  It's just that simple.


----------



## Syriusly

deanrd said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs can be bred for traits.  We know dogs came from wolves.  Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough.  The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua.  Obviously through artificial insemination.  Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
> Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation.  It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
> The transitions are all through nature.  Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile.  Typical among species that have diverged.  The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.
> 
> Usually Republicans come up with "kind".  A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is one of my questions.
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.
> 
> Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained it in a previous post.  What is wrong with you?  Can't even a simply explanation "take"?
> 
> A mule isn't a new species.  The separate species are the donkey and the horse.  A million years ago, there wasn't two, just one.  And the fact that the mule even exists is the proof of divergence.
> 
> It can't be explained any more simple.  Either you learn or you refuse.  It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


Well the anti-Evolutionists aren't really interested in 'fact-facts' they are interested in "Creationist" talking points. 

I have posted examples of observations of speciation that has been observed- and crickets.

I don't care if people want to believe that a fairy created Adam and Eve....but I do object to that belief being called 'science'


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, nice hedge....
> 
> "It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."
> 
> "I said perfect"
> 
> "What the fuck does that mean?"
> 
> "You just don't get it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about.  There was an unimpeachable witness.
> 
> The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.
> 
> Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.
Click to expand...


Why do you think it is I who makes this up?  None of this is accredited to me.

Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science.  Every living creature is related and came from a common ancestor.

Creation and Genesis is based on the Bible.  It is God's word and the truth.  Even the dictionary associates truth with God.  The Bible is backed up by science even though it isn't a science book.  God created the universe, earth, all living things.  The evidence is that life only begats life.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> 
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
Click to expand...


Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
Click to expand...

Libraries are humoring believers.  They'd get a million complaints if they put the Bible in the fiction section where it rightfully belongs.


----------



## james bond

Votto said:


> And that is one of my questions.
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.
> 
> Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?



Instead of arguing nonsense, why don't you show us how YOU are "led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue."  How does a mule which can't reproduce and isn't a new species do that?

All of that macroevolution stuff is BS.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
Click to expand...

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
> a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
> ...you don't get it do you?
> it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
> ....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell.  It's impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you trolling?
> so it's impossible for a single cell to appear--but possible for millions to appear in a complex human???!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't make much sense.  I said a protein cannot be created OUTSIDE a cell.  Do you know what a protein is?  I just explained it.
Click to expand...

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a cell/protein/ whatever was not ''created''/etc without god......but--you believe a human being could be created
ridiculous


----------



## harmonica

stop the crap---if you are anti-evolution, you must believe a fully formed human appeared from nothing like the _Star Trek _transporter --which is ridiculous 
Energize!


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
Click to expand...


What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
Click to expand...

Energize....


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
Click to expand...

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago?? 
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> stop the crap---if you are anti-evolution, you must believe a fully formed human appeared from nothing like the _Star Trek _transporter --which is ridiculous
> Energize!



Not only you know nothing about evolution and the Bible, but the Star Trek transporter is science fiction.  You can yell, "Energize!" all you want but won't go anywhere ha ha.  Just keep sitting on your dumb *ss.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap---if you are anti-evolution, you must believe a fully formed human appeared from nothing like the _Star Trek _transporter --which is ridiculous
> Energize!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only you know nothing about evolution and the Bible, but the Star Trek transporter is science fiction.  You can yell, "Energize!" all you want but won't go anywhere ha ha.  Just keep sitting on your dumb *ss.
Click to expand...

a man just ''appeared''...this is the bible and you !! just like the trasporter
yes--we believe that one ....


----------



## Weatherman2020

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


The anti science folks believe nature naturally evolves into the more complex, and mutations are a benefit.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
Click to expand...


Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
Click to expand...

it would be more likely/more believable god created man through evolution..this is more ''god like''
..evolution is more believable than a fully formed man just ''appearing''
..as I've stated in other threads, a lot of people do not think in realistic ideas/terms/etc


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
Click to expand...

and we have the human physical problems
disease
impacted teeth
autism
joined twins
deaf/blind
etc etc 
the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
Click to expand...

Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.


----------



## bripat9643

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and we have the human physical problems
> disease
> impacted teeth
> autism
> joined twins
> deaf/blind
> etc etc
> the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw
Click to expand...


Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
Click to expand...


Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
Click to expand...

wrong....a fully formed man ''appearing''=plausible---only in your mind


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and we have the human physical problems
> disease
> impacted teeth
> autism
> joined twins
> deaf/blind
> etc etc
> the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?
Click to expand...


The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and we have the human physical problems
> disease
> impacted teeth
> autism
> joined twins
> deaf/blind
> etc etc
> the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.
Click to expand...

yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
mutations = evolution

AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong....a fully formed man ''appearing''=plausible---only in your mind
Click to expand...


It would not be plausible to human minds including myself.  But not to God's mind and that is what is recorded in the Bible.  He created A&E on the 6th day.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and we have the human physical problems
> disease
> impacted teeth
> autism
> joined twins
> deaf/blind
> etc etc
> the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
Click to expand...


It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
Click to expand...


There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have the human physical problems
> disease
> impacted teeth
> autism
> joined twins
> deaf/blind
> etc etc
> the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
Click to expand...


God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong....a fully formed man ''appearing''=plausible---only in your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not be plausible to human minds including myself.  But not to God's mind and that is what is recorded in the Bible.  He created A&E on the 6th day.
Click to expand...


So God's mind doesn't operate on the principles of logic?  You're basically saying that God is irrational.


----------



## RWNJ

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


There is absolutely no hard scientific evidence for evolution. It's not science. It's a fairy tale for grownups.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, nice hedge....
> 
> "It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."
> 
> "I said perfect"
> 
> "What the fuck does that mean?"
> 
> "You just don't get it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about.  There was an unimpeachable witness.
> 
> The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.
> 
> Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science. .
Click to expand...


Feel free to show where any evolutionist teaches this. 

Show us or admit you are just lying.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, nice hedge....
> 
> "It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."
> 
> "I said perfect"
> 
> "What the fuck does that mean?"
> 
> "You just don't get it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about.  There was an unimpeachable witness.
> 
> The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.
> 
> Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation and Genesis is based on the Bible.  It is God's word and the truth.  Even the dictionary associates truth with God.  The Bible is backed up by science even though it isn't a science book.  God created the universe, earth, all living things.  The evidence is that life only begats life.
Click to expand...


That is not 'science' that is your opinion- based upon your faith. 

Life does 'begat' life- and over enough 'begats' evolution can occur.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong....a fully formed man ''appearing''=plausible---only in your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not be plausible to human minds including myself.  But not to God's mind and that is what is recorded in the Bible.  He created A&E on the 6th day.
Click to expand...

as I stated before--the answer to all questions--''it's god's plan''/god's way''/etc 
you can't expect us to take that for an answer


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harmonica, you need to understand something:
> 
> While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.
> 
> As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
Click to expand...


The Bible is listed with other religious books- along with Greek and Roman myths, and Zoroastrianism. 

It is non-fiction in the Dewey system- just as Phrenology and occultism


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is one of my questions.
> 
> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?
> 
> I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.
> 
> Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of arguing nonsense, why don't you show us how YOU are "led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue."  How does a mule which can't reproduce and isn't a new species do that?
> 
> All of that macroevolution stuff is BS.
Click to expand...


Since Mules have nothing to do with evolution we can't help you.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no hard scientific evidence for evolution. It's not science. It's a fairy tale for grownups.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of hard scientific evidence for evolution. Those who believe in fairy tales just can't except the evidence.

The fact remains is that the theory of evolution best fits the evidence we have. 

While God waving a magic hand and poofing everything suddenly into existence doesn't fit any of the evidence we have.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?
Click to expand...


No fish ever grew legs. No fish turned into an ape. No ape turned into an ape- human. 

If you believe that the theory evolution says any of that, then you are deliberately and intentionally ignorant.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
> ..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific. s.
Click to expand...


There is nothing 'plausible' about a "God" which we have no evidence of, creating plants one day- and the Sun the next day and birds a day after that- none of which fits any of the evidence we have.

Tell us how those plants survived that first day with no light- or heat- from the sun?


----------



## alang1216

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?"  Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about.  There was an unimpeachable witness.
> 
> The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.
> 
> Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show where any evolutionist teaches this.
> 
> Show us or admit you are just lying.
Click to expand...

I thought walking fish was an accepted part of evolution?  They are still around today so it is an advantage for fish in some habitats.

The theory of evolution suggests that life originated in the oceans and later moved onto land, and paleontologists have long been looking for transitional fossils between ocean-living and land-living animals. In 2006, a fossil _Tiktaalik roseae_ was found which has many features of wrist, elbow, and neck that are beginning to look similar to those of tetrapods.[13] It belongs to a group of lobe-finned fish called _Rhipidistia_, which according to some theories, were the ancestors of all tetrapods.[_citation needed_]


----------



## harmonica

RWNJ said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no hard scientific evidence for evolution. It's not science. It's a fairy tale for grownups.
Click to expand...

so a fully formed man just appeared like the _Star Trek_ transporter?


----------



## Syriusly

alang1216 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about.  There was an unimpeachable witness.
> 
> The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.
> 
> Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show where any evolutionist teaches this.
> 
> Show us or admit you are just lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought walking fish was an accepted part of evolution?  They are still around today so it is an advantage for fish in some habitats.
> 
> The theory of evolution suggests that life originated in the oceans and later moved onto land, and paleontologists have long been looking for transitional fossils between ocean-living and land-living animals. In 2006, a fossil _Tiktaalik roseae_ was found which has many features of wrist, elbow, and neck that are beginning to look similar to those of tetrapods.[13] It belongs to a group of lobe-finned fish called _Rhipidistia_, which according to some theories, were the ancestors of all tetrapods.[_citation needed_]
Click to expand...

None of them actually walk- they crawl. 

A *walking fish*, or *ambulatory fish*, is a fish that is able to travel over land for extended periods of time. Some other modes of non-standard fish locomotion include "walking" along the sea floor, for example, in handfish or frogfish.

Theory suggests that some type of ambulatory fish had offspring that were able to do more- and which had offspring that had more- until eventually- there was a true amphibian.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does JFK's assassination have to do with God?  You are a weirdo!
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
Click to expand...


Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.

Historical
Historical Creation Scientists

Modern
Creation Scientists


----------



## RWNJ

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
Click to expand...

Every creation requires a creator. Simple logic. The only argument atheists have for this is that the universe might not have been created...that it has always existed. This is a physical impossibility because of the law of entropy. If the universe has always existed then it would have been burning energy forever. See the problem?


----------



## harmonica

RWNJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every creation requires a creator. Simple logic. The only argument atheists have for this is that the universe might not have been created...that it has always existed. This is a physical impossibility because of the law of entropy. If the universe has always existed then it would have been burning energy forever. See the problem?
Click to expand...

answer the question--so you believe a fully formed man just ''appeared''/was created??


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we have the human physical problems
> disease
> impacted teeth
> autism
> joined twins
> deaf/blind
> etc etc
> the impacted teeth is from the evolution of the human jaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...


Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.

The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists and I are using the rules of reason.  When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.  One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree.  Later the oak tree produced acorns.  Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg.  Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life.  The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is listed with other religious books- along with Greek and Roman myths, and Zoroastrianism.
> 
> It is non-fiction in the Dewey system- just as Phrenology and occultism
Click to expand...


That's plain ignorance.

Best-selling book of non-fiction


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong.  They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman comics also sell well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is listed with other religious books- along with Greek and Roman myths, and Zoroastrianism.
> 
> It is non-fiction in the Dewey system- just as Phrenology and occultism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's plain ignorance.
> 
> Best-selling book of non-fiction
Click to expand...


That's the plain truth.

The Bible is 'non-fiction'  in the same as are Roman and Greek Myths.

Dewey Decimal System – A Guide to Call Numbers – Information Sciences Virtual Library – U of I Library


----------



## Syriusly

I noticed the internet fairy tale believers didn't respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.








For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
Click to expand...


Oh many scientists are Christians.

Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
Click to expand...


I do love it when the Christians tell us that the world didn't exist 6,001 years ago.

Or the Sun

Or the stars.

Reminds me of other creation myths.....


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me explain it then!!
> if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
> the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
Click to expand...


That doesn't make creationism scientific.  It just means we had no other theory until that time.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are diseases like Polio and small pox.  Why did this perfect, loving god create these diseases?  Why does he want millions of children to die horrible deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
Click to expand...

I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.

The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more likely?  You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian.  And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human.  Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules.  So, how could they even multiply?  And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man?  Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.
> 
> Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days?  He rested on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh many scientists are Christians.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"
Click to expand...


Most scientists are atheists, especially biologists.


----------



## harmonica

god's ''most important'' creation is extremely flawed = humans


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The diseases came about due to Adam's sin or original sin.  Before that he and Eve were perfect and faced no death.  A&E would've lived forever if not for disobeying God.  The wages of sin is death and the diseases, death and other problems such as evil happened after they disobeyed God.
> 
> 
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
Click to expand...

You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh many scientists are Christians.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most scientists are atheists, especially biologists.
Click to expand...


Probably most are now- but most early scientists were Christians who found no conflict between their faith in Jesus and their belief in scientific principles. 

Even now, scientists who are Christians believe in the the concept of Jesus the redeemer, but don't believe the Old Testament is literal truth. 

The concept of the Old Testament as literal truth is a rather recent, evangelical development.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
Click to expand...


So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did. 

And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.

And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.

And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.

What a great God!


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.
> 
> And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.
> 
> And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.
> 
> And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> What a great God!
Click to expand...


The God described in the Old Testament is a petulant immature psychopath.


----------



## bripat9643

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
Click to expand...

Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.  

Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.

If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?


----------



## harmonica

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes -we know about the catch all answers...the fall/sin/god's plan/etc
> so everyone after that is punished??  that makes no sense at all
> so what about impacted teeth?  this goes with the jaw becoming shorter/etc = evolution
> mutations = evolution
> 
> AND--why do the animals get punished also??!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
Click to expand...

god made us to sin
everyone sins..no one can help it
so it's pretty stupid that he punishes us for something he created us to do !!


----------



## bripat9643

harmonica said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> god made us to sin
> everyone sins..no one can help it
> so it's pretty stupid that he punishes us for something he created us to do !!
Click to expand...

He doesn't just punish us, he casts us into the lake of fire for all of eternity.  That guy is a vindictive mother fucker!


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.
> 
> And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.
> 
> And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.
> 
> And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> What a great God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God described in the Old Testament is a petulant immature psychopath.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that?


----------



## bripat9643

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.
> 
> And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.
> 
> And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.
> 
> And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> What a great God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God described in the Old Testament is a petulant immature psychopath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you say that?
Click to expand...

From the Old Testament:

(Deut. 7:1-2) When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, _*then you shall utterly destroy them*_. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them

(Deut. 20:16-17) Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, _*you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them*_, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you.

(1 Sam. 15:3) Now go and strike Amalek and _*utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey*_.

In the book of Judges, the story of Samson is relayed, including an episode where Samson is about to be married and makes a bet with thirty men who are to be part of the event. After he loses the bet and is forced to make good on it (he must provide thirty sets of clothes to them), Samson goes down to Ashkelon and kills thirty ‘innocent’ men for their garments: “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father's house” (Judges 14:19)

In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)

In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.

In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, _baqa_, means “to tear apart.”)

In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.

In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.

In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.
> 
> And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.
> 
> And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.
> 
> And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> What a great God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God described in the Old Testament is a petulant immature psychopath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the Old Testament:
> 
> (Deut. 7:1-2) When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, _*then you shall utterly destroy them*_. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them
> 
> (Deut. 20:16-17) Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, _*you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them*_, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you.
> 
> (1 Sam. 15:3) Now go and strike Amalek and _*utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey*_.
Click to expand...




And petty

Eliseus
And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. [24] And looking back, he saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord: and there came forth two bears out of the forest, and tore of them two and forty boys. [25] And from thence he went to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.


And we all remember Moses- 
And the children of Israel took _all_ the women of Mid'i-an captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
_16_  Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or,  Num. 25.1-9  and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
_17_  Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
_18_  But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach,


It is not, you freak. Again, a child would laugh at you for this dumb statement 


james bond said:


> Creation and Genesis is based on the Bible. It is God's word and the truth.


Yes, thank you for repeating your religious bullshit for the 1000th time. Yes, we get it: it's true, because it's true. Fascinating.


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense when because of the sin, death entered the world.  Adam and Eve's ancestors which are all us inherited the sin.  It is evidenced by us all dying including A&E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
Click to expand...

Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.
> 
> And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.
> 
> And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.
> 
> And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> What a great God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God described in the Old Testament is a petulant immature psychopath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the Old Testament:
> 
> (Deut. 7:1-2) When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, _*then you shall utterly destroy them*_. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them
> 
> (Deut. 20:16-17) Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, _*you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them*_, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you.
> 
> (1 Sam. 15:3) Now go and strike Amalek and _*utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey*_.
> 
> In the book of Judges, the story of Samson is relayed, including an episode where Samson is about to be married and makes a bet with thirty men who are to be part of the event. After he loses the bet and is forced to make good on it (he must provide thirty sets of clothes to them), Samson goes down to Ashkelon and kills thirty ‘innocent’ men for their garments: “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father's house” (Judges 14:19)
> 
> In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
> 
> In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
> 
> In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)
> 
> In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.
> 
> In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, _baqa_, means “to tear apart.”)
> 
> In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.
> 
> In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.
> 
> In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.
Click to expand...

What you are doing is taking Scripture out of context. A common tactic of atheists. There were good reasons for everything you referred to. I agree with you politically on most things, but on this issue you are completely clueless.


----------



## bripat9643

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.
> 
> And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.
> 
> And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.
> 
> And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> What a great God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God described in the Old Testament is a petulant immature psychopath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the Old Testament:
> 
> (Deut. 7:1-2) When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, _*then you shall utterly destroy them*_. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them
> 
> (Deut. 20:16-17) Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, _*you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them*_, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you.
> 
> (1 Sam. 15:3) Now go and strike Amalek and _*utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey*_.
> 
> In the book of Judges, the story of Samson is relayed, including an episode where Samson is about to be married and makes a bet with thirty men who are to be part of the event. After he loses the bet and is forced to make good on it (he must provide thirty sets of clothes to them), Samson goes down to Ashkelon and kills thirty ‘innocent’ men for their garments: “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father's house” (Judges 14:19)
> 
> In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
> 
> In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
> 
> In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)
> 
> In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.
> 
> In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, _baqa_, means “to tear apart.”)
> 
> In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.
> 
> In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.
> 
> In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are doing is taking Scripture out of context. A common tactic of atheists. There were good reasons for everything you referred to. I agree with you politically on most things, but on this issue you are completely clueless.
Click to expand...


What is the "good reason" for God sending a bear to tear apart 42 children because they made fun of an old man's bald head?


----------



## bripat9643

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
Click to expand...

How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?   

We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.


----------



## Taz

Mutations happen when people read the bible, because then they all mutate into retards.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you- God didn't create 'sin'- humans did.
> 
> And God created suffering to punish all humans for Adam and Eve's 'sin'.
> 
> And God is all powerful- and could stop the suffering- but chooses to let little children die horrible deaths instead.
> 
> And God is choosing to throw all the babies in the world- who don't acknowledge Jesus as their savior- into a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> What a great God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God described in the Old Testament is a petulant immature psychopath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the Old Testament:
> 
> (Deut. 7:1-2) When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, _*then you shall utterly destroy them*_. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them
> 
> (Deut. 20:16-17) Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, _*you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them*_, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you.
> 
> (1 Sam. 15:3) Now go and strike Amalek and _*utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey*_.
> 
> In the book of Judges, the story of Samson is relayed, including an episode where Samson is about to be married and makes a bet with thirty men who are to be part of the event. After he loses the bet and is forced to make good on it (he must provide thirty sets of clothes to them), Samson goes down to Ashkelon and kills thirty ‘innocent’ men for their garments: “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father's house” (Judges 14:19)
> 
> In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
> 
> In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
> 
> In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)
> 
> In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.
> 
> In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, _baqa_, means “to tear apart.”)
> 
> In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.
> 
> In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.
> 
> In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are doing is taking Scripture out of context. A common tactic of atheists. There were good reasons for everything you referred to. I agree with you politically on most things, but on this issue you are completely clueless.
Click to expand...



Tell us about the 'good reason' for burning your daughter alive.

Please explain that to us.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God punishes small children with paralysis and death because of Adam and Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned..
Click to expand...


How is it our fault that some guy named Adam sinned?

Is it your fault when a guy in Alaska robs a bank?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> The Bible is 'non-fiction'  in the same as are Roman and Greek Myths.
> 
> Dewey Decimal System – A Guide to Call Numbers – Information Sciences Virtual Library – U of I Library



Wrong, but since you provided the link... What's the reason for posting the link?  Where does Dewey place Roman and Greek Mythology?  Where does Dewey put the Bible?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of your scenareos are plausible, and neither of them gives an accurate description of how evolution works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh many scientists are Christians.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most scientists are atheists, especially biologists.
Click to expand...


Yes, many atheist scientists are biologists, paleontologists, zoologists and geologists.  Those are the four areas of most disagreement with creation scientists in regards to evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's about origins.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach,
> 
> 
> 
> It is not, you freak. Again, a child would laugh at you for this dumb statement
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation and Genesis is based on the Bible. It is God's word and the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank you for repeating your religious bullshit for the 1000th time. Yes, we get it: it's true, because it's true. Fascinating.
Click to expand...


Why are still here?  If I don't believe somebody, then I don't waste my time following them around ha ha.

OTOH, if you want to learn something, then stick around.  Just keep your yap shut.


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not God.  It's part of original sin.  He even destroyed the world with a global flood.  The children would have been paralyzed and died even under atheist science or evolutionary thinking and ToE.  Death is death.  It's how you perceive the world with your in worldview that determines what you believe happened.
> 
> The four worldly things one has to believe with creation science that happened are:  Adam & Eve and subsequent children, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and Jesus Birth, Death and Resurrection.  Most, if not all, of the creation scientists listed believed it.  I believed in evolution like quite a few people until 2012 when I became a Christian, started reading the Bible and started to investigate for myself.  By 2011, I had trouble believing evolution which I knew through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Even before then there was the eternal universe or steady state theory, but I think in the 60s (SST was challenged before that in 1927 and 1929)  it changed to Big Bang Theory as the best explanation.  Ask older members here and they should remember being taught an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.


----------



## james bond

The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.  There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort.  They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.  There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort.  They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.



That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??


----------



## bripat9643

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
Click to expand...

If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.

How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.

Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.
> 
> How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.
> 
> Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.
Click to expand...

DO you believe in God?


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.  There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort.  They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
Click to expand...

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue. Evolutionists want us to believe that some critter came out of the sea and grew some legs. It was also perfectly suited to it's environment. Why did it decide to leave? Your argument makes no sense at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> OTOH, if you want to learn something,


Are you kidding? You know nothing about evolution, and you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.


100%, hilariously wrong . It is not evidence for creation, as it is easily and simply explained by evolution. It is no more evidence for your magical nonsense than airplanes are evidence for lack of gravity. Get that weak sauce out of here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWNJ said:


> Evolutionists want us to believe that some critter came out of the sea and grew some legs.


No they don't. Goddamn, you fools know less than nothing about any of this.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is 'non-fiction'  in the same as are Roman and Greek Myths.
> 
> Dewey Decimal System – A Guide to Call Numbers – Information Sciences Virtual Library – U of I Library
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, but since you provided the link... What's the reason for posting the link?  Where does Dewey place Roman and Greek Mythology?  Where does Dewey put the Bible?
Click to expand...


Please explain how I am 'wrong'? The Bible has a creation myth- the Greek religions had a creation myth.

The Dewey Decimal system puts the following all in 'non-fiction'- which is of course- everything other than what is labeled as fiction: 
200 is the overall section for 'religion'
The Bible is 220, Old Testament 221, New Testament 225. 
Greek and Roman religions 292, Islam 297. 

Also 'non-fiction'- 
130 Parapsychology & occultism
139 Phrenology


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is plausible and more scientific.  OTOH the BBT, based on evolutionary thinking, states that it started with invisible particles and singularity.  Singularity is a situation of infinite density and temperature.  It is impossible for something infinite to exist in the material world (or else one has to divide by zero).  We can only have countless items such as stars and the sand on the beaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing plausible about creation theory.  There's nothing "scientific" about it.  It's a myth conceived by a nomadic tribe in the Bronze age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, there is.  It is what was believed in science before the 1850s.  Christians invented modern science starting with Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method.  Before that were a plethora of Christian scientists which you know such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre and more.
> 
> Historical
> Historical Creation Scientists
> 
> Modern
> Creation Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh many scientists are Christians.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they believe in 'Creation science' which is just a fancy of saying "Because the Bible told me so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most scientists are atheists, especially biologists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the four areas of most disagreement with creation scientists
Click to expand...


"Creation scientists' i.e. Christians who for some reason find a need to pretend science justifies their faith.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach,
> 
> 
> 
> It is not, you freak. Again, a child would laugh at you for this dumb statement
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation and Genesis is based on the Bible. It is God's word and the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank you for repeating your religious bullshit for the 1000th time. Yes, we get it: it's true, because it's true. Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are still here?  If I don't believe somebody, then I don't waste my time following them around ha ha.
> 
> OTOH, if you want to learn something, then stick around.  Just keep your yap shut.
Click to expand...


Evangelicals don't like it when people question their zealotism.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought God was the all powerful creator.  Are you saying that God has limitations, that he doesn't have control over everything?  You can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and simultaneously claim that he isn't responsible for Polio and Small Pox.  That's called a contradiction.  If he's all powerful, he has the ability to prevent every death and all the suffering that occurs on planet Earth.  That makes him responisible for allowing it to happen.  He's even responsible for original sin since he created the devil and the natural curiosity of humans.
> 
> The fact that scientists revise their theories doesn't mean you can legitimatelyclaim that creationism is real.  Scientific knowledge is imperfect.  If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science.  As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories about nature accordingly.  That doesn't make science invalid.  Science is a process, not an end point.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
Click to expand...


So you torture trees that bear bad fruit?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation. .



Demonstrating once again that the anti-evolutionists have no clue what scientific evidence or evolution is. 

We have fossil evidence that horseshoe crabs very similar to todays horseshoe crabs existed millions of years ago.

And the Christian Creationists argue that proves that the world was poofed into existence 6000 years ago.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.
> 
> How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.
> 
> Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DO you believe in God?
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to put into context why God would want you to burn your daughter to death.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.  There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort.  They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
Click to expand...


Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures. 

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.


----------



## Syriusly

Chinese creation myths - Wikipedia

Isn't it odd how Creationists are never trying to prove that Chinese creation stories are real?


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed the internet fairy tale believer didn't respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
Click to expand...

I noticed the internet fairy tale believers still don't have the balls to respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.








For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


----------



## The Irish Ram

A mutation is a variation of normal DNA. It is a *mistake*.

For one species to turn into another, the *very same mistake*<(an oxymoron) would have to occur over millions of years for a new species to exist. We would be walking on all of the bones of all those missing links that the process would have to produce before it made it as a new species.  Then there again is that pesky attribute of DNA to correct, to* not* make the same mistake again. 

So, what do the species whose DNA has erred  have sex with?  Their own species?  That would set them on a path to overcoming the DNA mistake, not propagating it.
Maybe sex with a different but similar species to create a new creature?
A donkey can have sex with a horse and produce a mule.  The mule is a DNA mistake.  DNA takes care of that mistake by making  mules sterile.  DNA does it's very best to NOT create new species.

And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.  Where are the monkey/humans that are still transitioning?  Where are the human/next species links?  Have humans reached the pinnacle of perfection and no longer need to transition into something more favorable? How are we *preventing* this inevitable, natural evolution now, and even stopping it?  
It  does create a funny side note:
Because of the stupidity and poor social skills of our children, science thinks we are *devolving*.  Teach your grandchildren to develop a taste for banannas....


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> A mutation is a variation of normal DNA. It is a *mistake*.
> 
> For one species to turn into another, the *very same mistake*<(an oxymoron) would have to occur over millions of years for a new species to exist. We would be walking on all of the bones of all those missing links that the process would have to produce before it made it as a new species.


Wow....millions of years.....yes sometimes it takes that long.

We are walking on the remains of all the species before us- we even build with them.

And a 'mistake' can often lead to beneficial change.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.



Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.

Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped. 

Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.

I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.

You Christianists ignore it of course.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mutation is a variation of normal DNA. It is a *mistake*.
> 
> For one species to turn into another, the *very same mistake*<(an oxymoron) would have to occur over millions of years for a new species to exist. We would be walking on all of the bones of all those missing links that the process would have to produce before it made it as a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....millions of years.....yes sometimes it takes that long.
> 
> We are walking on the remains of all the species before us- we even build with them.
> 
> And a 'mistake' can often lead to beneficial change.
Click to expand...


The VERY SAME MISTAKE, not the amount of time, is the key you skipped over.
Let's say you drove too fast and careened off of a bridge and hit a train down below.  You made a mistake.  Now recreate the exact same mistake, over and over and over for the rest of your life.  How many of the attempts were exactly the same as the first mistake?  None. 

With DNA the mis-take would produce a new and different mis-take long before it became another species, or it would correct the original mistake. It would not keep making the same mistake.  And the mistake would have to find another of it's species with the same mistake, otherwise, the genes would try to correct, not reproduce it's mistakes.  Mistakes usually die off in nature so the stronger of the species can continue to reproduce in kind.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
Click to expand...


Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?  
Christians love science.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mutation is a variation of normal DNA. It is a *mistake*.
> 
> For one species to turn into another, the *very same mistake*<(an oxymoron) would have to occur over millions of years for a new species to exist. We would be walking on all of the bones of all those missing links that the process would have to produce before it made it as a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....millions of years.....yes sometimes it takes that long.
> 
> We are walking on the remains of all the species before us- we even build with them.
> 
> And a 'mistake' can often lead to beneficial change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mistakes usually die off in nature so the stronger of the species can continue to reproduce in kind.
Click to expand...

Actually the vast majority of mutations are essentially irrelevant- with no negative or positive effect. Of the rest- most are negative. 

But if the 'mistake' allows in individual to contribute his or her DNA better than others- that 'mistake' makes them the stronger of the species and those genes carry on.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
Click to expand...


There are some Christians who do love science. They are not the Christians who preach the infallibility of the Bible or that the Old Testament should be taken literally so that the Sun was created the day after earth.

When I speak of you 'Christianists' I was speaking specifically of all of you arguing in this thread that evolution doesn't exist- and have pointedly ignored the article which I cited documenting the emergence of new species.


----------



## bripat9643

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
Click to expand...


Where does the Bible mention dimensions?


----------



## RWNJ

bripat9643 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
Click to expand...

God created all of space/time. That means He exists in a dimension outside of the one we inhabit.


----------



## Syriusly

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created all of space/time. That means He exists in a dimension outside of the one we inhabit.
Click to expand...



It says so right in the Bible......lol


----------



## bripat9643

RWNJ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created all of space/time. That means He exists in a dimension outside of the one we inhabit.
Click to expand...

it's still part of the universe.  We live in all the dimensions, BTW.
You didn't answer the question:  where does the Bible mention dimensions?


----------



## The Irish Ram

bripat9643 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
Click to expand...


Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis was there were at least 10 dimensions.  4 seen, 6 unseen.  Fast forward to today and science has concluded that there are at least 10. 4 seen 6 unseen.  It really screwed with Einstein to find out there was a 4th. He called it the bane of his existence.
If there are ten, there can also be an unlimited number of dimensions. < So says science, today..

Then there was Christ's appearing out of nowhere, and disappearing the same way.  He was multi dimension.  He stepped from one into another. From seen to unseen.

Not only does the Bible mention dimensions, it describes them.  Our science is not that advanced yet, but when they finally understand dimensions they will find that dimensions can burn, be torn, rolled up, and stretched.

Think of dimensions like a bathtub filled with bubbles.  Pick a bubble and call it our universe.  Our Father is a creator.  Why would He stop with just 1 bubble?  Ours just happens to be the one His children are reared in.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> For one species to turn into another, the *very same mistake*<(an oxymoron) would have to occur over millions of years for a new species to exist.


Haha....wow. This is so stunngly ignorant. The "mistake" only has to occur once. The new gene is then inherited.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWNJ said:


> God created all of space/time. That means He exists in a dimension outside of the one we inhabit.


Haha, what a bunch of magical garbage.


----------



## bripat9643

The Irish Ram said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis was there were at least 10 dimensions.  4 seen, 6 unseen.  Fast forward to today and science has concluded that there are at least 10. 4 seen 6 unseen.  It really screwed with Einstein to find out there was a 4th. He called it the bane of his existence.
> If there are ten, there can also be an unlimited number of dimensions. < So says science, today..
> 
> Then there was Christ's appearing out of nowhere, and disappearing the same way.  He was multi dimension.  He stepped from one into another. From seen to unseen.
> 
> Not only does the Bible mention dimensions, it describes them.  Our science is not that advanced yet, but when they finally understand dimensions they will find that dimensions can burn, be torn, rolled up, and stretched.
> 
> Think of dimensions like a bathtub filled with bubbles.  Pick a bubble and call it our universe.  Our Father is a creator.  Why would He stop with just 1 bubble?  Ours just happens to be the one His children are reared in.
Click to expand...


What are the four "seen" dimensions?   I'm only aware of three. 

I've never seen anything in the Bible that mentions dimensions.  Can you quote where it does that?

 A single bubble wouldn't be the entire universe.  It would be subuniverse.  The universe is everything that exists.  How would God exist outside everthing that exists?


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
Click to expand...


Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was Christ's appearing out of nowhere, and disappearing the same way.  He was multi dimension.  He stepped from one into another. From seen to unseen.
> 
> Not only does the Bible mention dimensions, it describes them..
Click to expand...


So Heaven is just another dimension?

And hell is just another dimension?

Fascinating.


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


Scientist found organic materials on Pluto and serius. These are dwarf planets. They have water inside them. 

We may have to thank dwarf planets for bringing water and organic materials to earth.

This is one possibility. If it were true would it change your faith? So why argue unless you prefer another hypothesis?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like _Star Trek_ energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
> what's more believable/chance of happening:
> a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or *millions *of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''?  ''Energize''
> View attachment 183169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
Click to expand...

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the next question, "Why has evolution stopped?" begs an answer that scientists merely stab at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.  

And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.  

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.


----------



## Marion Morrison

What are examples of new species?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> What are examples of new species?


Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
Click to expand...




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
Click to expand...


Riiight. 

What new species have developed in the past 400 years?

I know a few have gone extinct.

Give me an example of an observed new species and not pure crap, pls.


----------



## sealybobo

Marion Morrison said:


> What are examples of new species?


Mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish


----------



## sealybobo

Marion Morrison said:


> What are examples of new species?


Chawawa, beagles, pit bulls, Doberman, shitsu, Datsun all came from wolves


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.
> 
> How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.
> 
> Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.
Click to expand...


God made Adam by giving him free will.  Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan.  Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will.  The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve.  Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16.  Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it.  Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a horrible analogy.  Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong.  The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life.  All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors.  There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
> 
> On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures.  All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.  Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials.  This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed.  The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space.  Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
> 
> Which is more believable based on the evidence?  It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell.  If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
Click to expand...


Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason.  The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.  There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort.  They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations continue all of the time.
> 
> If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.
> 
> Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
Click to expand...


I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists.  It isn't a creationist argument in that the Bible refers to living fossils.  It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.  In other words, anyone can make the argument, not just creationists.  Before Darwin published Origin of Species, he and Georges Cuview were at odds as to why plants and animals went extinct.  Cuvier, a creation scientist, thought it was due to the earth going through periods of extinction due to catastrophism such as volcanoes, earthquakes, floods and so on.  OTOH, Darwin stated it was due to other plants and animals that were superior to the previous version and thus, it replaced it on the tree of life.  Darwin was the one who coined the term "living fossils."  The horseshoe crab is considered one of the many living fossils.  Anti-evolutionists do not think living fossils are an oddity because they did not get replaced by evolution.  They just went extinct due to catastrophism.  This explains why the horseshoe crab remains alive and not have changed or evolved into a different species.  OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree.  In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE.  Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time.  Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.


----------



## bripat9643

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
Click to expand...

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.


----------



## bripat9643

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiight.
> 
> What new species have developed in the past 400 years?
> 
> I know a few have gone extinct.
> 
> Give me an example of an observed new species and not pure crap, pls.
Click to expand...


Antibiotic resistant bacteria.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.
> 
> Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.
> 
> If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now?  What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.
> 
> How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.
> 
> Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God made Adam by giving him free will.  Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan.  Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will.  The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve.  Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16.  Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it.  Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.
Click to expand...

If God is perfect, then why does he need to test the creatures he created?  Aren't they supposed to be perfect?  If they aren't perfect, then how can you claim God is perfect?  It appears God deliberately created them with flaws so he could torture them forever when those flaws expressed themselves.  God's punishment for being flawed is extraordinarlly cruel and vindictive.   Casting a baby into the lake of fire for eternity because he wasn't babtized couldn't possibly be any crueler.


----------



## The Irish Ram

bripat9643 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
Click to expand...


Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.
> 
> How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.
> 
> Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God made Adam by giving him free will.  Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan.  Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will.  The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve.  Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16.  Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it.  Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God is perfect, then why does he need to test the creatures he created?  Aren't they supposed to be perfect?  If they aren't perfect, then how can you claim God is perfect?  It appears God deliberately created them with flaws so he could torture them forever when those flaws expressed themselves.  God's punishment for being flawed is extraordinarlly cruel and vindictive.   Casting a baby into the lake of fire for eternity because he wasn't babtized couldn't possibly be any crueler.
Click to expand...


Your first sentence doesn't make sense.  A&E were perfect physically, but they also were given free will.  Thus, the Tree of Knowledge was placed in the Garden as a negative test.  If they ate from the tree, then they would die.  What does Satan speaking though the serpent say to Eve?  As for the rest of stuff, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant..
Click to expand...


Malmonides would disagree with you regarding that. Mailmonides considered Christians to be heretics.

_“Know that this Chriatian nation, who are making the claim of a messiah, with all their many different sects, are all idol worshippers and all their holidays are forbidden, and we deal with them regarding religious issues as we would pagans.”_

I don't think Malmonides is exactly who you think he is.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his? .
Click to expand...


You said that Mailmonides gleaned other dimensions 'scientifically from Genesis'- I asked you how did Mailmonides accomplish this 'scientifically'? Did he test it? Tell us about his 'science'.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.
> 
> Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.
> 
> Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.
> 
> I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.
> 
> You Christianists ignore it of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get.  We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional  long before Hawking figured that there *were* other dimensions.  Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
> There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out.  We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
> Christians love science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.  .
Click to expand...


And the Bible says this where?


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> [
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.



There is no evidence that you can do that in any dimension- or that anyone witnessed any such thing.

You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiight.
> 
> What new species have developed in the past 400 years?
> 
> I know a few have gone extinct.
> 
> Give me an example of an observed new species and not pure crap, pls.
Click to expand...


This is the fifth time I have posted this in this thread. I fully expect you to explain why it doesn't count

I noticed the internet fairy tale believers still don't have the balls to respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.









For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Chawawa, beagles, pit bulls, Doberman, shitsu, Datsun all came from wolves
Click to expand...


Those are not new species- those are breeds. Any of those dogs will happily screw any of the others and produce fertile offspring.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
Click to expand...


We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.

So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.  There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort.  They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations continue all of the time.
> 
> If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.
> 
> Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists....  It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.
> 
> OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree.  In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE.  Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time.  Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.
Click to expand...


Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.

Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.

The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.

But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
Click to expand...


Well that Hubble must of been a prodigy- since Einstein developed the theory of relativity between 1905-1915, and Hubble was born in 1889


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The horshoe crab is evidence for creation.  There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort.  They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations continue all of the time.
> 
> If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.
> 
> Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists....  It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.
> 
> OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree.  In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE.  Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time.  Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.
> 
> Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.
> 
> The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.
> 
> But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.
Click to expand...


If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it.  It just happened to be by a Christian.

What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars.  You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.

Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves.  The crab is still part of the same species.  And here's where you're wrong about ToE.  It is based on changes over time.  In this case, the species didn't change.  It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere.  You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!).  That statement means you do not understand the ToE.

ToE explained here
An introduction to evolution

Furthermore, the millions of years ago is based on the strata layers.  These living fossils of Darwin such as the horseshoe crab are found in different layers.  Look up what Darwin said about living fossils and about extinction.  We keep getting older crabs and it makes the science papers and news.  Again, what it means is these living fossils such as the horseshoe crab aren't oddities and that extinction didn't take place due to it evolving into another species better able to survive.  While it did not apply to the horseshoe crab, it did apply to coelacanth.  That was the thinking for the coelacanth and we found out that it wasn't true.

Extinctions
Extinctions: Georges Cuvier

It has nothing to do with mutations.  You don't understand that either
Mutations

The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”

The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”

That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.

Dodging living fossils - creation.com


----------



## bripat9643

The Irish Ram said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible mention dimensions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
_Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]

*Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?
> 
> We can address Jesus later.  Right  now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.
> 
> 
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.
> 
> How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.
> 
> Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God made Adam by giving him free will.  Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan.  Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will.  The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve.  Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16.  Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it.  Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God is perfect, then why does he need to test the creatures he created?  Aren't they supposed to be perfect?  If they aren't perfect, then how can you claim God is perfect?  It appears God deliberately created them with flaws so he could torture them forever when those flaws expressed themselves.  God's punishment for being flawed is extraordinarlly cruel and vindictive.   Casting a baby into the lake of fire for eternity because he wasn't babtized couldn't possibly be any crueler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first sentence doesn't make sense.  A&E were perfect physically, but they also were given free will.  Thus, the Tree of Knowledge was placed in the Garden as a negative test.  If they ate from the tree, then they would die.  What does Satan speaking though the serpent say to Eve?  As for the rest of stuff, it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


So they were perfect physically, but not mentally?  Why did God feel the need to test them?  God gave them curiosity and then dangled something in front of them that they were certain to be curious about.  Does a parent dangle candy in front of a child and then spank him if he grabs it and eats it?  Only if that parent is abusive.  Anyone witnessing such behavior would call child services.

You really don't see anything irrational about this all loving god consigning souls to burn in the lake of fire forever?  No matter what they did when alive, do you actually think such a punishment is just?  Most of them are going to the lake of fire simply for not believing that some gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe.

God creates free will, which means some humans will commit heinous offenses against other humans.  They will rape, murder and torture, and this is supposed to be part of God's wonderful plan?  God puts some people on this earth so that they can be raped and murdered to test the goodness of other people?


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Chawawa, beagles, pit bulls, Doberman, shitsu, Datsun all came from wolves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not new species- those are breeds. Any of those dogs will happily screw any of the others and produce fertile offspring.
Click to expand...

Ok, then fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians 

These are the species that evolved on earth. 

There are no new species. That happened a long time ago. What we have is what we have


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
Click to expand...

Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.

These places have water, a hot core and the organic materials necessary for life.

And again, even if we find smart dolphins in Europa what will that prove? Will it make Christians not believe? I doubt it.

So why do so many fundamental Christians seem to be adamant that there is no other life on other planets? Either they want to believe that or there bible tells them..

I think they just want to believe we are alone. Makes them feel special but if aliens visited that wouldn’t shake their faith


----------



## ChrisL

Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear.  Makes much more sense than evolution.


----------



## harmonica

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing 
you're not even being reasonable


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable


Who are you talking to?


----------



## harmonica

sealybobo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
Click to expand...

every one that thinks this is how man was created:


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason.  The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).
Click to expand...


You know what's funny?  It's scientists who will someday save us from armageddon.  It won't be you people praying.  These scientists are working on ways to stop future meteors that would wipe humans out.  You theists wouldn't come up with anything and you would just accept your fate as gods will.  I would rather put my FAITH in scientists who will scientifically figure out a way to thwart gods will.  

These same scientists will discover life on other planets.

How NASA Could Explore Jupiter Moon Europa's Ocean


MORE







Sending a submarine to the bottom of the ocean on Jupiter's icy moon Europa is the most exciting potential mission in planetary science, according to one prominent researcher.

Europa's seafloor may well be capable of supporting life as we know it today, said Cornell University's Steve Squyres, lead scientist for NASA's Opportunity Mars rover, which is currently roaming the Red Planet. So a Europa robotic submarine mission is at the top of his wish list, though it likely won't happen anytime soon.

Trump wants to send astronauts to the Moon on the way to Mars

“The directive I am signing today will refocus America’s space program on human exploration and discovery. It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use.”

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of the Trump administration’s Moon ambitions. In July, Vice President Pence declared “we will put American boots on the face of Mars” during a speech to NASA


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every one that thinks this is how man was created:
Click to expand...


There really is only 2 explanations.  The scientific theory or the POOF hypothesis.


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every one that thinks this is how man was created:
Click to expand...


I read this online

"Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time. 

Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."

Think about that.  God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet.  He POOFED them into existence a long time ago.  We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years.  So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.  

Of all species that have existed on Earth, *99.9 percent* are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.


----------



## harmonica

sealybobo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every one that thinks this is how man was created:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this online
> 
> "Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.
> 
> Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."
> 
> Think about that.  God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet.  He POOFED them into existence a long time ago.  We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years.  So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.
> 
> Of all species that have existed on Earth, *99.9 percent* are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.
Click to expand...

so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every one that thinks this is how man was created:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this online
> 
> "Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.
> 
> Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."
> 
> Think about that.  God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet.  He POOFED them into existence a long time ago.  We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years.  So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.
> 
> Of all species that have existed on Earth, *99.9 percent* are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?
Click to expand...


No.  What makes you ask me that?


----------



## harmonica

sealybobo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every one that thinks this is how man was created:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this online
> 
> "Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.
> 
> Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."
> 
> Think about that.  God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet.  He POOFED them into existence a long time ago.  We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years.  So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.
> 
> Of all species that have existed on Earth, *99.9 percent* are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What makes you ask me that?
Click to expand...

o..I guess the dinosaur/humans deal was confusing on which way you were going


----------



## harmonica

sealybobo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
> you're not even being reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every one that thinks this is how man was created:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this online
> 
> "Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.
> 
> Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."
> 
> Think about that.  God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet.  He POOFED them into existence a long time ago.  We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years.  So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.
> 
> Of all species that have existed on Earth, *99.9 percent* are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What makes you ask me that?
Click to expand...

I do like the ""Poof'' analogy......with your permission, I would maybe like to use that sometimes


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> 
> 
> every one that thinks this is how man was created:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this online
> 
> "Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.
> 
> Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."
> 
> Think about that.  God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet.  He POOFED them into existence a long time ago.  We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years.  So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.
> 
> Of all species that have existed on Earth, *99.9 percent* are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What makes you ask me that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> o..I guess the dinosaur/humans deal was confusing on which way you were going
Click to expand...

I cut and pasted that from someone else.  I think the point they were trying to make is the POOF theory is ridiculous because if 99% of all animals have went extinct, that means 

a.  The earth must have been over populated with animals at one time and

b.  Why would god poof all those creatures into existence just to have them go extinct?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> What new species have developed in the past 400 years?


We have documented quite a few. Is your Google broken, son? I'm not your mommy. This is publicly available information. Look it up yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChrisL said:


> Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear. Makes much more sense than evolution


Maybe it does, to a person like you who does not understand evolution.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What new species have developed in the past 400 years?
> 
> 
> 
> We have documented quite a few. Is your Google broken, son? I'm not your mommy. This is publicly available information. Look it up yourself.
Click to expand...

The most commonly discovered new species are typically insects, a type of animal with a high degree of biodiversity. Newly discovered mammal species are rare, but they do occur, typically in remote places that haven't been well studied previously. Some animals are found to be new species only when scientists peer at their genetic code, because they look outwardly similar to another species — these are called cryptic species. Some newfound species come from museum collections that haven't been previously combed through and, of course, from fossils. Read below for stories about newly discovered species, both alive on Earth today and those that once roamed the planet.

New Species 2018 - Newly Discovered Plants, Animals and Microbes

My favorite


----------



## The Irish Ram

bripat9643 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's the other way around:
> 
> Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
> _Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]
> 
> *Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's the other way around:
> 
> Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
> _Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]
> 
> *Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​
Click to expand...


You are referring to Hubble's Law.  I am referring to Hubble, who proved to Einstein the cosmos was *not constant* as Einstein believed:
In cosmology, the *cosmological constant* (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917[1] as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept _*after*_ Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside the Local Group (the group that contains the Milky Way Galaxy) are moving away from each other, implying an overall expanding universe. From 1929 until the early 1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmological constant to be zero....


----------



## bripat9643

The Irish Ram said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's the other way around:
> 
> Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
> _Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]
> 
> *Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's the other way around:
> 
> Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
> _Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]
> 
> *Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are referring to Hubble's Law.  I am referring to Hubble, who proved to Einstein the cosmos was *not constant* as Einstein believed:
> In cosmology, the *cosmological constant* (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917[1] as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept _*after*_ Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside the Local Group (the group that contains the Milky Way Galaxy) are moving away from each other, implying an overall expanding universe. From 1929 until the early 1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmological constant to be zero....
Click to expand...

You just admitted that Hubble's theory came after Einstein's, so what are you arguing about?


----------



## Syriusly

ChrisL said:


> Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear.  Makes much more sense than evolution.



Do all of the Gods do that- or just some of them?


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
Click to expand...


As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Syriusly said:


> And the Bible says this where?





Syriusly said:


> You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.



What do you suggest I use then,  a Betty Crocker Cookbook?

And to the shortsighted poster that thinks God goes "poof", dimensions dearheart, dimensions. 
Can God see the beginning from the end without getting all poofie??  Yes.  How? dimension # 6.  


> In the *sixth*, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimension, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.


Science proves what God says. God not only mastered the 6th dimension, He created it.  No poofies, just science...
A Universe of 10 Dimensions - Universe Today


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's the other way around:
> 
> Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
> _Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]
> 
> *Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's the other way around:
> 
> Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
> _Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]
> 
> *Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are referring to Hubble's Law.  I am referring to Hubble, who proved to Einstein the cosmos was *not constant* as Einstein believed:
> In cosmology, the *cosmological constant* (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917[1] as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept _*after*_ Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside the Local Group (the group that contains the Milky Way Galaxy) are moving away from each other, implying an overall expanding universe. From 1929 until the early 1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmological constant to be zero....
Click to expand...


So you are admitting that your claim 
_Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant
_
Was a slight error- since Einstein actually came up with the Theory of Relativity before meeting Hubble and before Hubble's 1929 discovery.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Bible says this where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you suggest I use then,  a Betty Crocker Cookbook?y
Click to expand...


That is like saying that you have proven that a recipe from Betty Crocker tastes good because the Cookbook says that the recipe is for a tasty meal.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
> 
> 
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations continue all of the time.
> 
> If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.
> 
> Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists....  It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.
> 
> OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree.  In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE.  Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time.  Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.
> 
> Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.
> 
> The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.
> 
> But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it.  It just happened to be by a Christian.
> 
> What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars.  You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.
Click to expand...


It is an anti-evolution argument- used exclusively by you Christianist anti-evolutionists.

The basis for the Christianist argument against Evolution is as you yourself have stated- the belief that the Earth is around 6,000 years old.

And that argument is just willfully ignorant- since we have so many examples from geology, paleontology and cosmology that show that is patently false.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
> 
> 
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations continue all of the time.
> 
> If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.
> 
> Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists....  It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.
> 
> OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree.  In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE.  Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time.  Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.
> 
> Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.
> 
> The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.
> 
> But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it.  It just happened to be by a Christian.
> 
> What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars.  You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.
> 
> Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves.  The crab is still part of the same species.  And here's where you're wrong about ToE.  It is based on changes over time.  In this case, the species didn't change.  It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere.  You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!).  That statement means you do not understand the ToE.
Click to expand...


Prove that the horseshoe crab of today is the same species as the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago. 

This will be interesting because there are 4 extant horseshoe crab species today. 
Which one of these is the same species as the species of 450 million years ago- and how will you prove it?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations continue all of the time.
> 
> If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.
> 
> Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists....  It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.
> 
> OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree.  In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE.  Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time.  Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.
> 
> Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.
> 
> The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.
> 
> But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it.  It just happened to be by a Christian.
> 
> What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars.  You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.
> 
> Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves.  The crab is still part of the same species.  And here's where you're wrong about ToE.  It is based on changes over time.  In this case, the species didn't change.  It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere.  You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!).  That statement means you do not understand the ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that the horseshoe crab of today is the same species as the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago.
> 
> This will be interesting because there are 4 extant horseshoe crab species today.
> Which one of these is the same species as the species of 450 million years ago- and how will you prove it?
Click to expand...

Not quite the same:


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't proof of creationism.  The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection.  If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??
> 
> 
> 
> You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations continue all of the time.
> 
> If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.
> 
> Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists....  It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.
> 
> OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree.  In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE.  Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time.  Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.
> 
> Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.
> 
> The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.
> 
> And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.
> 
> But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it.  It just happened to be by a Christian.
> 
> What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars.  You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.
> 
> Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves.  The crab is still part of the same species.  And here's where you're wrong about ToE.  It is based on changes over time.  In this case, the species didn't change.  It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere.  You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!).  That statement means you do not understand the ToE.
> 
> ToE explained here
> An introduction to evolution
Click to expand...


Considering all of the false claims you have made about the Theory of Evolution- I find it humorous that you provide a citation- that of course doesn't back up your claim.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.



One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.

One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.

Like you are doing

The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.


----------



## The Irish Ram

No error.  Einstein had a theory alright.  The only problem was, it was wrong.  E does not equal mc squared in a static universe. Not in 1915, not in 1917, 19, 29 or 30.
It took Hubble's expanding universe to convince Einstein that the universe  was *not* static, but expanding. < (Einstein's bane)  Einstein adopted that belief in the early *thirties*. Of the two, Einstein vs Hubble, only one knew that the universe was expanding in 1929.  Only one of the two was right.  It was not Einstein.



> Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static.. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae—today known as galaxies. But the reality is more complex. The change in Einstein's viewpoint, in fact, resulted from a tortuous thought process. Now, in an article published in _European Physical Journal H_, Harry Nussbaumer from the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, explains how Einstein changed his mind following many encounters with some of the most influential astrophysicists of his generation.
> 
> In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe. However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse – an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.


Einstein's conversion from a static to an expanding universe

What Einstein needed to keep his universe from collapsing was expanding space time which he finally found, and dark matter, which he knew had to exist, but eluded him.
Why was an expanding universe his bane?  Because he realized that, contrary to his belief, the universe had a beginning. Until then, he had to apologize to his colleagues so often for his incorrect math, that no one took him seriously.  It was indeed torturous.

And now, on to proof that we are only as smart as our most recent scientists, and not nearly as smart as God:
Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> No error.  Einstein had a theory alright.  The only problem was, it was wrong.



So Einstein didn't come up with a Theory of Relativity in by 1917?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Bible says this where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you suggest I use then,  a Betty Crocker Cookbook?y
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is like saying that you have proven that a recipe from Betty Crocker tastes good because the Cookbook says that the recipe is for a tasty meal.
Click to expand...


Ah, but Betty Crocker recipes are repeatable experiments, the outcome is the same, time and time again.

Therefore, Betty Crocker Cookbook=scientific.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> No error.  Einstein had a theory alright.  The only problem was, it was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Einstein didn't come up with a Theory of Relativity in by 1917?
Click to expand...


He worked on the Theory of Relativity right up to 1931, disposed the constant in 1931, embraced Hubble's expanding universe, and the math look good enough to take Einstein seriously.  He begrudgingly added that 4th dimension, that he simply didn't believe existed prior to Hubble's discovery. 
So, no Big Bang for Einstein. He didn't believe in a beginning and an end until he found out the universe had a beginning point.  Then he had to figure out who started it.  Not wanting to give the personal God of the Bible the credit, he decided that the Bible was full of shit, and his God was instead merely an anonymous creator.
Had he added the other 6+ dimensions his math would have been perfect and he would have understood how the Biblical God could have moved back and forth thru time...without poofy magic. Turns out all that was necessary was Creator God's advanced science and His dimensions.

Let's put the Scientific/Biblical/Creator God to the test. Now that man has found more of God's dimensions, here is what they will eventually discover.
Dimensions can:
be torn
be burned
be stretched
be rolled up like a scroll. < stunning.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
Click to expand...


Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.

1.  Water
2.  A molten hot core
3. Organic material

Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa

I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.

Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.

The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.

We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.

"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
> is this what you saying???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason.  The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).
Click to expand...


Did you know Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface?  No.  You think we sent a probe here and didn't find life and that's the end of it.  You couldn't be more wrong.  They did find something very promising and now we have to go back.  

The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.

"I think this is important enough that we will see a redirection in the planetary exploration program," Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn, told MSNBC.com. "We've just brought Enceladus up to the forefront as a major target of astrobiological interest."

The readings from Enceladus' geyser plumes indicate that all the prerequisites for life as we know it could exist beneath Enceladus' surface, Porco said.

"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."

The third necessary ingredient — energy for fueling life's processes — could exist around hydrothermal vents around the bottom of Enceladus' water reservoirs, just as it does around Earth's deep-ocean hydrothermal vents.

Liquid water on Saturn moon could support life


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


_“Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn’t have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn’t even be thinking about it.”_
*— President Trump, in remarks at the Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, Calif., March 13, 2018*
*
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis

Of course he's completely wrong about this too.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> No error.  Einstein had a theory alright.  The only problem was, it was wrong.  E does not equal mc squared in a static universe. Not in 1915, not in 1917, 19, 29 or 30.
> It took Hubble's expanding universe to convince Einstein that the universe  was *not* static, but expanding. < (Einstein's bane)  Einstein adopted that belief in the early *thirties*. Of the two, Einstein vs Hubble, only one knew that the universe was expanding in 1929.  Only one of the two was right.  It was not Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static.. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae—today known as galaxies. But the reality is more complex. The change in Einstein's viewpoint, in fact, resulted from a tortuous thought process. Now, in an article published in _European Physical Journal H_, Harry Nussbaumer from the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, explains how Einstein changed his mind following many encounters with some of the most influential astrophysicists of his generation.
> 
> In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe. However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse – an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein's conversion from a static to an expanding universe
> 
> What Einstein needed to keep his universe from collapsing was expanding space time which he finally found, and dark matter, which he knew had to exist, but eluded him.
> Why was an expanding universe his bane?  Because he realized that, contrary to his belief, the universe had a beginning. Until then, he had to apologize to his colleagues so often for his incorrect math, that no one took him seriously.  It was indeed torturous.
> 
> And now, on to proof that we are only as smart as our most recent scientists, and not nearly as smart as God:
> Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you keep naming scientists who would disagree with all of your magical nonsense.

And how odd that you say we are "only as smart as our scientists"... And then you deny their discoveries. Apparently, you meant to say we are only as smart as YOU are, and you are somehow smarter than our best scientists....all without a single shred of education or experience in their fields.

Amazing!


----------



## The Irish Ram

Einstein:
“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

Hubble was raised Christian and didn't discuss his religious beliefs.

You don't get that science IS what you are calling magic. Dimensions aren't magic, they are scientific. 
We are only as smart as our most recent scientist.  For instance, Einstein as brilliant as he was, was a 3 dimension guy.  Then he became a 4 dimension guy.  Hawking was a 10 dimension guy.   Kaku will be an unlimited dimension guy...  And I deny none of  their contributions.  The smarter they get, the closer to God they get.  I am all for it.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis, according to Maimonides.  In the 1100's.  What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?
> 
> I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah?  Same God, different covenant.
> How did Einstein test his?  His math wouldn't gel.  Then Hubble introduced him to space time.  That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right.  Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations.  We have since realized they are there.
> 
> And yes.  Heaven is IN a different dimension.  Hell is not.
> 
> There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated.  You can't do that in our dimensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity *after* Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was *not* constant, but expanding.  That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's the other way around:
> 
> Hubble's law - Wikipedia​
> _Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the *Hubble flow*.[5]
> 
> *Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations*, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the *Hubble constant*.[_​
Click to expand...


Einstein came up with the ToR first, but Hubble showed Einstein that he was right and that the universe was expanding.. Up to learning about Hubble's work, he questioned his own ToR.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
Click to expand...


Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens.  What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang.  Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.


----------



## Muhammed

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


Yep, they mate. And it is an arbitrarily decided matter of opinion as to whether the offspring is a new species.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him.  God is still responsible.  You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it.  If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.
> 
> How is it not the right time for God to stop evil?  If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought.  What's stopping him?  If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.
> 
> Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God made Adam by giving him free will.  Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan.  Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will.  The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve.  Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16.  Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it.  Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God is perfect, then why does he need to test the creatures he created?  Aren't they supposed to be perfect?  If they aren't perfect, then how can you claim God is perfect?  It appears God deliberately created them with flaws so he could torture them forever when those flaws expressed themselves.  God's punishment for being flawed is extraordinarlly cruel and vindictive.   Casting a baby into the lake of fire for eternity because he wasn't babtized couldn't possibly be any crueler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first sentence doesn't make sense.  A&E were perfect physically, but they also were given free will.  Thus, the Tree of Knowledge was placed in the Garden as a negative test.  If they ate from the tree, then they would die.  What does Satan speaking though the serpent say to Eve?  As for the rest of stuff, it doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they were perfect physically, but not mentally?  Why did God feel the need to test them?  God gave them curiosity and then dangled something in front of them that they were certain to be curious about.  Does a parent dangle candy in front of a child and then spank him if he grabs it and eats it?  Only if that parent is abusive.  Anyone witnessing such behavior would call child services.
> 
> You really don't see anything irrational about this all loving god consigning souls to burn in the lake of fire forever?  No matter what they did when alive, do you actually think such a punishment is just?  Most of them are going to the lake of fire simply for not believing that some gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe.
> 
> God creates free will, which means some humans will commit heinous offenses against other humans.  They will rape, murder and torture, and this is supposed to be part of God's wonderful plan?  God puts some people on this earth so that they can be raped and murdered to test the goodness of other people?
Click to expand...


A&E were adults, not children.  They were both physically and mentally perfect and were give infinite lives and a paradise on Earth.  However, they were given free will by God because he didn't want robots and he did not want them to disobey him.  That was the only thing he asked for in return.

Souls burning in the lake of fire is the destruction of the perfect spiritual body in the lake of fire.  It's painful to see, but it's not like your physical body burning forever.  I think that's something the Catholics thought.  Pain and suffering can be spiritual such as grief or anguish.

No, it's not part of his plan.  Remember he created angels and some of the angels rebelled against him with his best angel Lucifer becoming so powerful that he wanted a position equal to God.  God cast Lucifer and his followers out from heaven because of their rebellion and they became demons.  Evil people are like Satan in they rape, murder and torture, but they weren't part of God's plan.  That was of their own volition and I would think they were spurred on by Satan.  Satan first told Eve that she wouldn't die from eating the apple.  He's been lying and tricking people since.  You're being tricked by writing God as god.  I recently learned in the Bible, Satan is referred to as god of the earth.


----------



## william the wie

That's the question that Wallace of Wallace and Darwin of evolution fame and Crick of Crick and Watson's discovery of the structure found unanswerable. as in is the mutation can happen in either the nucleus or the mitochondria and have major effects. then RNA mutation in the Ribosomes can also be huge as with meta and epi genetics. And of course atypical shaping proteins are also poorly understood. Which mutation are you talking about ?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear.  Makes much more sense than evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do all of the Gods do that- or just some of them?
Click to expand...


God appearing in material form is called theophany or Christophany and it's referred to in the Bible such as God appearing before Moses.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
Click to expand...


You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that.  Thus, I started questioning evolution.  It had nothing to do with creation.  Creationists and creation scientists  would believe in the Bible.

Did you look up what Darwin said about extinction?  It goes to follow evolutionists think that it's rare to find the coelacanth and Wolemi pine still existing.  Coel was the missing link for fish to walking fish or amphibians.  When coel was found, the atheist scientists found it could not walk and was just a fish.  Thus, there was no missing link until the tiktaalik fossil was found.  Now they made it the missing link and it evolved from coelacanth.

Yet, most living fossils from millions of years ago are found living today.  One has to explain how these haven't changed and we haven't gotten a good explanation from evolutionists.  Your argument contradicts what Darwin proposed.  Another living fossil would be the ape and chimpanzee.  I don't believe we came from apes because an ape-human hybrid cannot reproduce and live beyond one generation.  The evidence of ape-humans has a shady past, too.  Even Prof Owen Lovejoy who put Lucy, the first ape-human, together thinks apes evolved from humans.  Richard Leakey, famed paleoanthropologist,  thinks Lucy is from three different species.

All of my above argument uses evolution and evidence found to question it.  It's not from any creation science explanation.  Thus, evos have to come up with an explanation or another theory.  And that's what's happening.  People are looking at genetic engineering or rapid mutation from Mendel.  They are also re-looking at Lermarck's ideas of straight line evolution.  It's called epigenetic inheritance.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.
> 
> 1.  Water
> 2.  A molten hot core
> 3. Organic material
> 
> Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
> 
> I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
Click to expand...


Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It's circular reasoning.  My counter to it is better.  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.  

At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars.  It would ramp up sending more probes there.  Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.

List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond

william the wie said:


> That's the question that Wallace of Wallace and Darwin of evolution fame and Crick of Crick and Watson's discovery of the structure found unanswerable. as in is the mutation can happen in either the nucleus or the mitochondria and have major effects. then RNA mutation in the Ribosomes can also be huge as with meta and epi genetics. And of course atypical shaping proteins are also poorly understood. Which mutation are you talking about ?



I would guess it is based on Darwin and Wallace since it's evolution.  Yeah, the more rapid mutation is epigenetics.  What is meta?  I use evolution to argue against genetic engineering, so there's some use for it.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.
> 
> 1.  Water
> 2.  A molten hot core
> 3. Organic material
> 
> Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
> 
> I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It's circular reasoning.  My counter to it is better.  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
> 
> At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars.  It would ramp up sending more probes there.  Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
> 
> List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Statistically there should be dozens or hundreds of planets like earth out there. We’ve just begun. So far nothing but think optimistic not pessimistic


----------



## ChrisL

Syriusly said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear.  Makes much more sense than evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do all of the Gods do that- or just some of them?
Click to expand...


All of them, of course.  They have a presentation first though.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.
> 
> 1.  Water
> 2.  A molten hot core
> 3. Organic material
> 
> Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
> 
> I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It's circular reasoning.  My counter to it is better.  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
> 
> At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars.  It would ramp up sending more probes there.  Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
> 
> List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''
in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is 
I can say all kinds of stuff:
santa is square
the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
etc
so prove there is a  god


----------



## rightwinger

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?



Usually it involves some kind of nuclear explosion

The mutations create Godzilla, giant flying moths and 50 ft women


----------



## ChrisL

rightwinger said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually it involves some kind of nuclear explosion
> 
> The mutations create Godzilla, giant flying moths and 50 ft women
Click to expand...


That is probably how the Bigfoots (would it be Bigfoots or Bigfeet?) and Mothmen came to be.


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?



They mate with the original species and their genes mix eventually creating the new species.  

You can never point to one birth and say "there is the new species".  It happens slowly over times.  It takes millions or hundreds of thousands of years to notice a difference.  That's how long the process takes.

Birds were once dinosaurs.  That doesn't mean one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird.  Every dinosaur gave birth to a dinosaur and every bird gave birth to a bird but somewhere in between dinosaurs became birds.  You dig?


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually it involves some kind of nuclear explosion
> 
> The mutations create Godzilla, giant flying moths and 50 ft women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is probably how the Bigfoots (would it be Bigfoots or Bigfeet?) and Mothmen came to be.
Click to expand...


I actually watched a show about this yesterday.  Russia and the USA agreed not to do anymore nuclear testing but the Russians continued to do it anyways.  They didn't want to test it on their own people so they did it in Kazakhstan.  Then they told people to go about their business and to swim in the nuclear lake because it was safe.  







Completely safe





Soviet-era nuclear testing is still making people sick in Kazakhstan


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.
> 
> 1.  Water
> 2.  A molten hot core
> 3. Organic material
> 
> Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
> 
> I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It's circular reasoning.  My counter to it is better.  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
> 
> At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars.  It would ramp up sending more probes there.  Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
> 
> List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''
> in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is
> I can say all kinds of stuff:
> santa is square
> the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
> etc
> so prove there is a  god
Click to expand...


You're not following the aliens discussion, at least I don't think you are.

However, I can answer your question about proofs of God.  I can't answer your question about disproving God because atheists are usually wrong such as you are usually wrong.

Proofs are in mathematics, but not science.

In math, one cannot divide by zero.  By definition, a/0 is undefined.  If we continue, this is because 12 x 0 does not equal 144.  In order to get 144, one must be a creator.  The creator can create 144 items to get 144.  Thus, God.

How to apply this concept in science.  It also means that anything that is infinite does not exist in the material world.  Singularity, the start of the universe in Big Bang Theory, is a state of infinite density and infinite temperature of quantum particles (invisible particles).  Singularity also means there was a beginning.  However, these atheist scientists are claiming some metaphysical singularity existed.  Nothing like that in the material/physical world.  Thus, God.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear.  Makes much more sense than evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do all of the Gods do that- or just some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God appearing in material form is called theophany or Christophany and it's referred to in the Bible such as God appearing before Moses.
Click to expand...


What about the other Gods- do they do that too? 

What about Zeus? What about Buddha? Ishtar? Tefnut?


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Einstein:
> “I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
> 
> Hubble was raised Christian and didn't discuss his religious beliefs.
> 
> You don't get that science IS what you are calling magic. Dimensions aren't magic, they are scientific.
> We are only as smart as our most recent scientist.  For instance, Einstein as brilliant as he was, was a 3 dimension guy.  Then he became a 4 dimension guy.  Hawking was a 10 dimension guy.   Kaku will be an unlimited dimension guy...  And I deny none of  their contributions.  The smarter they get, the closer to God they get.  I am all for it.



And by 'God' what do you mean?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens.  What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang.  Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
Click to expand...


Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life? 

Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.  

There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.


----------



## Syriusly

Muhammed said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they mate. And it is an arbitrarily decided matter of opinion as to whether the offspring is a new species.
Click to expand...


Only because the definition of species is itself somewhat arbitrary- and arguable.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
Click to expand...


Then quote from those links. 

I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.

But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.

However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.
> 
> 1.  Water
> 2.  A molten hot core
> 3. Organic material
> 
> Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
> 
> I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It's circular reasoning.  My counter to it is better.  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
> 
> At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars.  It would ramp up sending more probes there.  Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
> 
> List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''
> in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is
> I can say all kinds of stuff:
> santa is square
> the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
> etc
> so prove there is a  god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not following the aliens discussion, at least I don't think you are.
> 
> However, I can answer your question about proofs of God.  I can't answer your question about disproving God because atheists are usually wrong such as you are usually wrong.
> 
> Proofs are in mathematics, but not science.
> 
> In math, one cannot divide by zero.  By definition, a/0 is undefined.  If we continue, this is because 12 x 0 does not equal 144.  In order to get 144, one must be a creator.  The creator can create 144 items to get 144.  Thus, God.
> 
> How to apply this concept in science.  It also means that anything that is infinite does not exist in the material world.  Singularity, the start of the universe in Big Bang Theory, is a state of infinite density and infinite temperature of quantum particles (invisible particles).  Singularity also means there was a beginning.  However, these atheist scientists are claiming some metaphysical singularity existed.  Nothing like that in the material/physical world.  Thus, God.
Click to expand...

that's what I thought


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It goes to follow evolutionists think that it's rare to find the coelacanth and Wolemi pine still existing.  Coel was the missing link for fish to walking fish or amphibians.  When coel was found, the atheist scientists found it could not walk and was just a fish.  Thus, there was no missing link until the tiktaalik fossil was found.  .
Click to expand...


Of course scientists were surprised to find that the coelacanth still existed- because it had only been observed in fossil form. 

Where did you get this whole 'missing link' for amphibians stuff for the coelacanth? Not from scientists.

It just sounds like the Christianist talking points.

Scientists talking about evolution generally don't talk about 'missing links' because the very concept of a 'missing link' really misses the point of the Theory of Evolution. 

I cited an article about the emergence of a new species- I think I have posted the article 5 times now- and you have studiously avoided responding to it. 

No missing link mentioned.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.
> 
> 1.  Water
> 2.  A molten hot core
> 3. Organic material
> 
> Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
> 
> I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It's circular reasoning.  My counter to it is better.  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
> 
> At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars.  It would ramp up sending more probes there.  Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
> 
> List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''
> in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is
> I can say all kinds of stuff:
> santa is square
> the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
> etc
> so prove there is a  god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In math, one cannot divide by zero.  By definition, a/0 is undefined.  If we continue, this is because 12 x 0 does not equal 144.  In order to get 144, one must be a creator.  The creator can create 144 items to get 144.  Thus, God.
> .
Click to expand...


So if I create 144 milk shakes- I am God?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Einstein:
> “I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
> 
> Hubble was raised Christian and didn't discuss his religious beliefs.
> 
> You don't get that science IS what you are calling magic. Dimensions aren't magic, they are scientific.
> We are only as smart as our most recent scientist.  For instance, Einstein as brilliant as he was, was a 3 dimension guy.  Then he became a 4 dimension guy.  Hawking was a 10 dimension guy.   Kaku will be an unlimited dimension guy...  And I deny none of  their contributions.  The smarter they get, the closer to God they get.  I am all for it.


Einstein was an agnostic atheist.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then quote from those links.
> 
> I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
> 
> But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
> 
> However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to be argumentative?  The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt.  I didn't present any creation scientists arguments and those provide more evidence against ToE.  It goes to show that you continue to believe OLD evolution on faith because that's what you've been taught or it fits your atheist worldview.  I started to doubt it in 2011 as I said and many scientists agree except they don't want to come out and say it for fear of getting their funding cut off.

That said, is all of ToE BS?  No.  The evolution of natural selection is fine except now we know it can be rapid instead of slow.  I'd get rid of the CHANGE over millions of years.  Too many creatures do not evolve over time.  I don't believe in common ancestors, but it still could be viable.  Mutation?  Mutation is now rapid mutation of EI.  I think the tree of life has been replaced by the bushes of life which the creation scientists found.  This can still explain the changes via some tree of life, i.e. the tree has become a bush.  Some of it may be millions of years.  ToE now accepts catastrophism as causing some of the changes, also from creation scientists.  When catatstrophism is involved, change happened very fast instead of slow.  The history of evolutionary thinking is still valid.  What anti-evolution findings hurt for the most part was Darwinism.

Check out Lemarckism and straight-line evolution.  Sure, Lemarck was wrong about the giraffe, but epigenetic inheritance changed all of that starting in 2003 with the human genome chart being completed.  EI started rolling around 2005.  Check out how they propose to eradicate malaria and Zika virus.  Evolution leads to being safe instead of sorry over GE.  The biggest money maker for GE is GMO foods.  You can't get GMO seeds or food from old evolution.

Super-Mendelian mosquitoes may fight malaria

Evolution still lives.
Black widow virus results from evolution, not genetic engineering


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein:
> “I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
> 
> Hubble was raised Christian and didn't discuss his religious beliefs.
> 
> You don't get that science IS what you are calling magic. Dimensions aren't magic, they are scientific.
> We are only as smart as our most recent scientist.  For instance, Einstein as brilliant as he was, was a 3 dimension guy.  Then he became a 4 dimension guy.  Hawking was a 10 dimension guy.   Kaku will be an unlimited dimension guy...  And I deny none of  their contributions.  The smarter they get, the closer to God they get.  I am all for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein was an agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...


Wrong, Einstein.  He was a pantheist.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens.  What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang.  Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
> 
> Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
> 
> There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
Click to expand...

The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species.  I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then quote from those links.
> 
> I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
> 
> But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
> 
> However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to be argumentative?  The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt.  I didn't present any creation scientists arguments and those provide more evidence against ToE.  It goes to show that you continue to believe OLD evolution on faith because that's what you've been taught or it fits your atheist worldview.  I started to doubt it in 2011 as I said and many scientists agree except they don't want to come out and say it for fear of getting their funding cut off.
> 
> That said, is all of ToE BS?  No.  The evolution of natural selection is fine except now we know it can be rapid instead of slow.  I'd get rid of the CHANGE over millions of years.  Too many creatures do not evolve over time.  I don't believe in common ancestors, but it still could be viable.  Mutation?  Mutation is now rapid mutation of EI.  I think the tree of life has been replaced by the bushes of life which the creation scientists found.  This can still explain the changes via some tree of life, i.e. the tree has become a bush.  Some of it may be millions of years.  ToE now accepts catastrophism as causing some of the changes, also from creation scientists.  When catatstrophism is involved, change happened very fast instead of slow.  The history of evolutionary thinking is still valid.  What anti-evolution findings hurt for the most part was Darwinism.
> 
> Check out Lemarckism and straight-line evolution.  Sure, Lemarck was wrong about the giraffe, but epigenetic inheritance changed all of that starting in 2003 with the human genome chart being completed.  EI started rolling around 2005.  Check out how they propose to eradicate malaria and Zika virus.  Evolution leads to being safe instead of sorry over GE.  The biggest money maker for GE is GMO foods.  You can't get GMO seeds or food from old evolution.
> 
> Super-Mendelian mosquitoes may fight malaria
> 
> Evolution still lives.
> Black widow virus results from evolution, not genetic engineering
Click to expand...

yes--you're anti-evolution and pro-creation arguments are undeniable


----------



## sealybobo

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens.  What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang.  Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
> 
> Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
> 
> There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species.  I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.
Click to expand...

So really good people never become angels? 

People who don’t like evolution because no new species come popping up overnight don’t mind that god doesn’t visit again or have and send a second son. Or create new angels. When’s the last time god made a new angel?


----------



## LittleNipper

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens.  What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang.  Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
> 
> Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
> 
> There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species.  I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So really good people never become angels?
> 
> People who don’t like evolution because no new species come popping up overnight don’t mind that god doesn’t visit again or have and send a second son. Or create new angels. When’s the last time god made a new angel?
Click to expand...

There is no Biblical evidence the humans ever become angels or messengers. Satan was created an angel from the beginning. It is suspected that "Lucifer" was jealous of Adam and that might have played a part in Lucifer's attitude. We are told in the Bible that 1/3 of the angels fell and were cast from heaven. The rest were sealed after they made the choice to remain loyal. There are no new angels as they are likely sexless.

We are told that one third of an “innumerable company of angels” (Hebrews 12:22) chose to rebel with him. John saw this great wonder in heaven, “…an enormous red dragon…His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth…the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him” (Revelation 12:3–9). 

Since Satan is referred to as a star which fell or was cast down to earth, and Revelation 12:4 says a third of the stars were cast out with him, then the conclusion is that the stars in Revelation 12 refer to fallen angels, fully one third of the heavenly host. If the one-third number is in fact accurate, what assurance that is! Two thirds of the angels are still on God's side, and for followers of Christ, they are on our side as well.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then quote from those links.
> 
> I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
> 
> But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
> 
> However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to be argumentative?  The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt.
Click to expand...


Why do I dare to point out how everything you post is false? Why do I continue to point out that you are merely parroting Christianist anti-evolutionary propaganda?

And why do I point out that you haven't presented any 'evidence' to support your Christianist propaganda?

Because I think science is important- and I don't believe in fairies in the sky.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then quote from those links.
> 
> I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
> 
> But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
> 
> However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That said, is all of ToE BS?  No.  The evolution of natural selection is fine except now we know it can be rapid instead of slow.  I'd get rid of the CHANGE over millions of years.  Too many creatures do not evolve over time.  I don't believe in common ancestors, but it still could be viable.  Mutation?  Mutation is now rapid mutation of EI.  I think the tree of life has been replaced by the bushes of life which the creation scientists found.  This can still explain the changes via some tree of life, i.e. the tree has become a bush.  Some of it may be millions of years.  ToE now accepts catastrophism as causing some of the changes, also from creation scientists.  When catatstrophism is involved, change happened very fast instead of slow.  The history of evolutionary thinking is still valid.  What anti-evolution findings hurt for the most part was Darwinism.
Click to expand...


You are all over the place there. 

In previous posts you have claimed that the world is only 6,000 years old- now you seem to be conceding that the world can be millions of years old.

The seem to want to change the metaphor of the 'tree of life' to the 'bush of life' while ignoring that both are merely metaphors. 

Darwinism is merely one of the earliest explanation for the theory of evolution. Darwin was brilliant(though he did not do it all on his own) in connecting the dots to recognize descent from common ancestors with the tools that he had available at the time. 

Continued research has shown that more of his theories are correct than false- but of course he didn't understand all of evolution then- and most certainly we don't understand all of the complexity of evolution now.  

What is certain is that the general theory of evolution is the theory which best fits the evidence that we actually do have for how life is on earth. The DNA evidence, the fossil evidence, the physiological evidence. 

There is no competing theory that even comes close to matching all of the known evidence- certainly not 'Creationism'- aka Evangelical interpretation of the Bible.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Let's say a speck of dust, some energy, and a pond poofed life into the speck and a single celled amoeba, was the result.   Then the cells start to double and pretty soon we have a species. 
How did the speck impart knowledge into the species?  
What embedded the species with instincts?  
What cell had the knowledge of symbiotic relationships?  How did the cell know to tell one member of the same fish species that they could find lunch by cleaning the teeth of a shark, while it told another fish to hide when they saw a shark?  
How do your random cells think? Hit and miss?  Hardly. The less than fit of the species die off. No DNA ever said, "Let's just keep trying to mutate wrongly for millions of years until we get it right."   DNA is programmed (by someone) to* not* mutate consistently.  It is how a species remains  a species.

And that mutant thing that you think left the pond and dragged itself on to land.  Did a mate also randomly develop lungs and leave the pond at the same time? 
What directed their cells to mutate at the same time, with the same mutation to produce lungs?  
Instinct would keep them in the pond. Their food is in the pond.  They instinctively mate in the pond to insure their eggs are hidden and safe.  Even with the couple's rogue lungs, they still wouldn't have survived their random cellular mistakes out of their natural habitat.  They would have died off.  

Then there is that pesky eye.  Without a designer who embedded code,  you seem to believe that 1 million nerve endings begin growing toward the brain, while 1 million optic nerve endings start moving from the brain through the flesh toward the eye.  The nerves must find and match their mate for sight to be possible.  
The statistical odds of that happening  correctly, randomly, is considered a scientific impossibility.  
And concerning the eye,  it can transmit one and a half million messages to the brain simultaneously.  
Can random cells produce specific information? 
What randomness informed the optic nerve cells in an eagle's brain to work differently than the cells of a human infant? It's not just that the optic cells must work correctly, it is that they work correctly/differently per species. So not only does your randomness have to get it right the first time for the eye to work, but it has to know the specific works on each member of each species.  How many fish have the same eyes?   

Convince me I am wrong about a design and a designer.  Answer my questions.  
Then we can move on the the phony monkey chart of the evolution of man.  Like how many millions of years did it take Neanderthal man to become our modern selves?


----------



## The Irish Ram

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens.  What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang.  Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
> 
> Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
> 
> There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species.  I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So really good people never become angels?
> 
> People who don’t like evolution because no new species come popping up overnight don’t mind that god doesn’t visit again or have and send a second son. Or create new angels. When’s the last time god made a new angel?
Click to expand...


Good people never become angels.  Angels stand in the presence of God.  His children sit at His table.


----------



## harmonica

The Irish Ram said:


> Let's say a speck of dust, some energy, and a pond poofed life into the speck and a single celled amoeba, was the result.   Then the cells start to double and pretty soon we have a species.
> How did the speck impart knowledge into the species?
> What embedded the species with instincts?
> What cell had the knowledge of symbiotic relationships?  How did the cell know to tell one member of the same fish species that they could find lunch by cleaning the teeth of a shark, while it told another fish to hide when they saw a shark?
> How do your random cells think? Hit and miss?  Hardly. The less than fit of the species die off. No DNA ever said, "Let's just keep trying to mutate wrongly for millions of years until we get it right."   DNA is programmed (by someone) to* not* mutate consistently.  It is how a species remains  a species.
> 
> And that mutant thing that you think left the pond and dragged itself on to land.  Did a mate also randomly develop lungs and leave the pond at the same time?
> What directed their cells to mutate at the same time, with the same mutation to produce lungs?
> Instinct would keep them in the pond. Their food is in the pond.  They instinctively mate in the pond to insure their eggs are hidden and safe.  Even with the couple's rogue lungs, they still wouldn't have survived their random cellular mistakes out of their natural habitat.  They would have died off.
> 
> Then there is that pesky eye.  Without a designer who embedded code,  you seem to believe that 1 million nerve endings begin growing toward the brain, while 1 million optic nerve endings start moving from the brain through the flesh toward the eye.  The nerves must find and match their mate for sight to be possible.
> The statistical odds of that happening  correctly, randomly, is considered a scientific impossibility.
> And concerning the eye,  it can transmit one and a half million messages to the brain simultaneously.
> Can random cells produce specific information?
> What randomness informed the optic nerve cells in an eagle's brain to work differently than the cells of a human infant? It's not just that the optic cells must work correctly, it is that they work correctly/differently per species. So not only does your randomness have to get it right the first time for the eye to work, but it has to know the specific works on each member of each species.  How many fish have the same eyes?
> 
> Convince me I am wrong about a design and a designer.  Answer my questions.
> Then we can move on the the phony monkey chart of the evolution of man.  Like how many millions of years did it take Neanderthal man to become our modern selves?


so you think it more plausible that millions of cells made into a complex being than a single cell being created? how ridiculous
--so what you are saying is ---it is possible for a complex being with Millions of cells being created but impossible for a single cell to be created
...you are contradicting yourself big time


----------



## The Irish Ram

No, you are just hard of reading. I think cells (regardless of how many)  are encoded by design.  Nothing random about it at all.   I think a single cell has complex DNA from the very beginning.  DNA is_* very detailed complex code.*_   What I don't believe is that randomness can embed codes.   Or that randomness or single cells can produce instinct. Do you really believe single cells have thought processes?  How did randomness know that it would have to grow 2 little flippers on a specific  fish because millions of years from then, the fish would need them because it will dig holes in the sea floor to lay it's eggs?
You believe that cells go from simple to complex.  The DNA in a single celled organism is complex from the beginning.   It contains information.  Do you honestly believe that amoebas are genius enough to impart instinct?  Where did information come from in the very first single cell?
How did your single cell progress enough to tell a turtle's DNA, a turtle that has lived his whole life alone mind you, to go to a specific spot on the earth on a specific week, every 4 calendar years to breed, and then tell the female turtles to go to the place they don't remember being born,  on a specific week, every 4 years to breed?
My computer is embedded with a digital code.  Do you think that it would have appeared randomly, eventually on it's own anyway, even if there was no Bill Gates and the others?  Because that is what you believe about DNA. 
Can you answer ANY of the questions I have asked?  Just answer what was smart enough to build a *code* in the cells of a turtle that would insure it was in the right place at the right time, in the right year, and therefore insure the species survival.


----------



## harmonica

The Irish Ram said:


> No, you are just hard of reading.   I think a single cell has complex DNA from the very beginning.  DNA is a _*code.*_   What I don't believe is that randomness can embed codes.  Or that randomness or single cells can produce instinct. Do you really believe single cells have thought processes?
> How did randomness know that it would have to grow 2 little flippers on this specific  fish because millions of years from it's inception, it would need them because it will dig holes in the sea floor to lay it's eggs.
> You believe that cells go from simple to complex.  The DNA in a single celled organism is complex from the beginning.   It contains information.  Do you honestly believe that amoebas are genius enough to impart instinct?  Where did information come from in the very first single cell?
> How did your single cell progress enough to tell a turtle's DNA, a turtle that has lived his whole life alone mind you, to go to a specific spot on the earth on a specific week, every 4 calendar years to breed, and then tell the female turtles to go to the place they don't remember being born,  on a specific week, every 4 years to breed?
> Can you answer ANY of the questions I have asked?  Just answer that last one.


how did god create a fully formed man from nothing?? answer that one question, please


----------



## The Irish Ram

Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:

  Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...

and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
Random does not produce millions of species' intricate unique encryption.  Not now, not ever.

It is our crazy scientists that are telling you that nothing comes from nothing, and yet nothing created everything.


----------



## harmonica

The Irish Ram said:


> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:
> 
> Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
> 
> and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
> Random does not produce intricate encryption.  Not now, not ever.


god does not produce something from nothing not now, not ever


----------



## The Irish Ram

So, funny emo is your best argument against a Creator?  
Yeah, you're going to win this debate for sure...
lol. What do* you* think man is made of?


----------



## The Irish Ram

harmonica said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:
> 
> Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
> 
> and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
> Random does not produce intricate encryption.  Not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> god does not produce something from nothing not now, not ever
Click to expand...


And yet, if our government told you that they had proof we were seeded by aliens, and that is where the information in our DNA and indeed DNA itself came from, you'd lap it up. 
Your "aien" has a name.  It is El Shaddai.


----------



## Selivan

Chatterboxes


----------



## harmonica

The Irish Ram said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:
> 
> Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
> 
> and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
> Random does not produce intricate encryption.  Not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> god does not produce something from nothing not now, not ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, if our government told you that they had proof we were seeded by aliens, and that is where the information in our DNA and indeed DNA itself came from, you'd lap it up.
> Your "aien" has a name.  It is El Shaddai.
Click to expand...

what?? 
please answer the question:
are you  saying it is impossible for a single cell to be created, but possible for millions of cells to be created and arranged into a complex being ??


----------



## The Irish Ram

No. That is not what I am saying.  I am saying that a cell needs to be programed to function correctly.  1 or a million  cells, it makes no difference.  WHO programmed cells to function? What programmed it's amino acids to line up on the right side or the left side? Random?  If amino acids acted randomly, there would be no life on earth. They are extremely specific.  That is the opposite of random.
  If you think DNA is an act of simple to complex you are at odds with science.  The DNA of something as simple as a single cell has a complex code that tells the cell to do this or that. Without encryption, legs would grow out of an insect's head instead of an antenna.  How did random design the right instinct into the correct gene?

Now answer a few of my questions.  How did random create instincts? How did random know about symbiotic relationships before the life of the participants in the relationship were even created?
In fact, answer a couple of questions, because so far you have answered none.  How many millions of years did it take for the final evolution of man from Neanderthal  to Modern?


----------



## MPS777

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe.  Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there.  But what we found was the essentials for life.
> 
> 1.  Water
> 2.  A molten hot core
> 3. Organic material
> 
> Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
> 
> I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets.  And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is.  They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like.  Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> We are on the cusp of discovery.  No more exciting time than now.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It's circular reasoning.  My counter to it is better.  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
> 
> At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars.  It would ramp up sending more probes there.  Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
> 
> List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''
> in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is
> I can say all kinds of stuff:
> santa is square
> the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
> etc
> so prove there is a  god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not following the aliens discussion, at least I don't think you are.
> 
> However, I can answer your question about proofs of God.  I can't answer your question about disproving God because atheists are usually wrong such as you are usually wrong.
> 
> Proofs are in mathematics, but not science.
> 
> In math, one cannot divide by zero.  By definition, a/0 is undefined.  If we continue, this is because 12 x 0 does not equal 144.  In order to get 144, one must be a creator.  The creator can create 144 items to get 144.  Thus, God.
> 
> How to apply this concept in science.  It also means that anything that is infinite does not exist in the material world.  Singularity, the start of the universe in Big Bang Theory, is a state of infinite density and infinite temperature of quantum particles (invisible particles).  Singularity also means there was a beginning.  However, these atheist scientists are claiming some metaphysical singularity existed.  Nothing like that in the material/physical world.  Thus, God.
Click to expand...

>>>"Singularity, the start of the universe in Big Bang Theory, is a state of infinite density and infinite temperature of quantum particles (invisible particles)."

Here’s what we know.  It’s models based on General Relativity that predict an infinitely dense/hot singularity at the beginning of the known universe.  However General Relativity is not a wholistic description of reality.  It does a great job of describing gravity and large objects, but quantum mechanics does a much better job of describing electromagnetism and the nuclear forces at microscopic scales.  And General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible formulations.  We need a model that melds gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces into a unified theory in order to make accurate proper predictions about the earliest moments in time.  Therefore making grand conclusions based on General Relativity alone would be flawed reasoning.  Many scientist believe the infinities predicted by General Relativity are indicators that the theory breaks down as an accurate model under those conditions; and if it’s failing to fully account for electromagnetic and nuclear forces, that’s a pretty valid concern.

I think a more accurate statement about what we know of the early universe is that 13.8 billion years ago it was very hot, very dense, expanding very rapidly (but also decelerating).


----------



## ABikerSailor

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?



Mating figures in as well.  Look at all the different dog breeds we have.  They all came from wolves.  Selective breeding made the different breeds.

Same thing with fancy doves.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> He was a pantheist.


....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....


----------



## LittleNipper

harmonica said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:
> 
> Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
> 
> and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
> Random does not produce intricate encryption.  Not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> god does not produce something from nothing not now, not ever
Click to expand...

GOD created EVERYTHING both visible and invisible. I don't know where you get your info from.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a pantheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....
Click to expand...

*Pantheism* is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god and hold a broad range of doctrines differing with regards to the forms of and relationships between divinity and reality.

Pantheism was popularized in Western culture as a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza,.7 particularly his book _Ethics_, published in 1677. The term "pantheism" was coined by Mathematician Joseph Raphson in 1697 and has since been used to describe the beliefs of a variety of people and organizations.

Pantheistic concepts date back thousands of years, and pantheistic elements have been identified in various religious traditions.

So, Mr. Einstein may not be in heaven, but it is likely because he had a paganised view of GOD that is quite old and had no Savior.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then quote from those links.
> 
> I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
> 
> But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
> 
> However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to be argumentative?  The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt.  I didn't present any creation scientists arguments and those provide more evidence against ToE.  It goes to show that you continue to believe OLD evolution on faith because that's what you've been taught or it fits your atheist worldview.  I started to doubt it in 2011 as I said and many scientists agree except they don't want to come out and say it for fear of getting their funding cut off.
> 
> That said, is all of ToE BS?  No.  The evolution of natural selection is fine except now we know it can be rapid instead of slow.  I'd get rid of the CHANGE over millions of years.  Too many creatures do not evolve over time.  I don't believe in common ancestors, but it still could be viable.  Mutation?  Mutation is now rapid mutation of EI.  I think the tree of life has been replaced by the bushes of life which the creation scientists found.  This can still explain the changes via some tree of life, i.e. the tree has become a bush.  Some of it may be millions of years.  ToE now accepts catastrophism as causing some of the changes, also from creation scientists.  When catatstrophism is involved, change happened very fast instead of slow.  The history of evolutionary thinking is still valid.  What anti-evolution findings hurt for the most part was Darwinism.
> 
> Check out Lemarckism and straight-line evolution.  Sure, Lemarck was wrong about the giraffe, but epigenetic inheritance changed all of that starting in 2003 with the human genome chart being completed.  EI started rolling around 2005.  Check out how they propose to eradicate malaria and Zika virus.  Evolution leads to being safe instead of sorry over GE.  The biggest money maker for GE is GMO foods.  You can't get GMO seeds or food from old evolution.
> 
> Super-Mendelian mosquitoes may fight malaria
> 
> Evolution still lives.
> Black widow virus results from evolution, not genetic engineering
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes--you're anti-evolution and pro-creation arguments are undeniable
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> The argument goes like this from evos:
> ".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
> 
> The anti-evolutionists counters with:
> "“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
> 
> That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
> 
> One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
> 
> Like you are doing
> 
> The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
> a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
> b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making stuff up.  I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution.  The links I gave you came from the university I attended.  I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011.  A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then quote from those links.
> 
> I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
> 
> But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
> 
> However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to be argumentative?  The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I dare to point out how everything you post is false? Why do I continue to point out that you are merely parroting Christianist anti-evolutionary propaganda?
> 
> And why do I point out that you haven't presented any 'evidence' to support your Christianist propaganda?
> 
> Because I think science is important- and I don't believe in fairies in the sky.
Click to expand...








It's because you're a lying atheist and wrong .


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a pantheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....
Click to expand...







Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a pantheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.
Click to expand...


Well so far you have been wrong about virtually everything. 

Are you lying? Or are you delusional?


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> How many millions of years did it take for the final evolution of man from Neanderthal  to Modern?



First of all realize that our understanding of human evolution is somewhat fragmented- because frankly we have very, very few humanoid fossils. 

But based upon our most current theory of human evolution- modern man- us- didn't evolve from the Neanderthal. 

Neanderthals were a separate species of man that left Africa before homo sapiens and settled Europe. Modern DNA testing shows that humans from Europe have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA, showing that there was some genetic crossover- but modern man evolved in Africa separately from Neanderthals. 

You want more information- here is a good link

The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> No. That is not what I am saying.  I am saying that a cell needs to be programed to function correctly.  1 or a million  cells, it makes no difference.  WHO programmed cells to function? What programmed it's amino acids to line up on the right side or the left side? Random?  If amino acids acted randomly, there would be no life on earth. They are extremely specific.  That is the opposite of random.
> If you think DNA is an act of simple to complex you are at odds with science.  The DNA of something as simple as a single cell has a complex code that tells the cell to do this or that. Without encryption, legs would grow out of an insect's head instead of an antenna.  How did random design the right instinct into the correct gene?



Frankly you are just arguing that your own mind is too limited to see how cells and DNA works and how that would work with evolution.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> The statistical odds of that happening  correctly, randomly, is considered a scientific impossibility.
> 
> Convince me I am wrong about a design and a designer.  Answer my questions.?



You are just parroting the Christianist anti-evolutionary talking points.

No one can convince you that you are wrong- because you have convinced yourself that only 'god' can have poofed everything into existence. 

No one but Christianist anti-evolutionists consider the statistics to be a 'scientific impossibility'

Anyway- knock yourself out- no one will convince you to believe in science rather than a book of fairy tales.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.



Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......

LOL


----------



## Syriusly

Okay my challenge to all of you Christianists who  believe that the Bible is literal truth- that life was poofed into existence the first 6 days the Universe existed and that all life was wiped out in the Flood except marine life and what was on Noah's Ark.

How did the life on earth end up where it ended up?

Elephant Birds on Madagascar?
Kangaroos in Australia?
Galapagos tortoises in the Galapagos
Nene geese on Hawaii?

And nowhere else?

The Theory of Evolution- along with continental drift explains why how they could exist where they exist.

How does the Bible explain it?


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...

He’s actually right this time.

Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.

So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> Okay my challenge to all of you Christianists who  believe that the Bible is literal truth- that life was poofed into existence the first 6 days the Universe existed and that all life was wiped out in the Flood except marine life and what was on Noah's Ark.
> 
> How did the life on earth end up where it ended up?
> 
> Elephant Birds on Madagascar?
> Kangaroos in Australia?
> Galapagos tortoises in the Galapagos
> Nene geese on Hawaii?
> 
> And nowhere else?
> 
> The Theory of Evolution- along with continental drift explains why how they could exist where they exist.
> 
> How does the Bible explain it?


A GOD directed/manipulated dispersal after the FLOOD. If one believes in GOD, one can certainly try to figure out how GOD did it; however, one doesn't have to make up a "natural" rationalization. I mean I love koala bears --- GOD made Koala bears ---- He must love them!


----------



## sealybobo

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay my challenge to all of you Christianists who  believe that the Bible is literal truth- that life was poofed into existence the first 6 days the Universe existed and that all life was wiped out in the Flood except marine life and what was on Noah's Ark.
> 
> How did the life on earth end up where it ended up?
> 
> Elephant Birds on Madagascar?
> Kangaroos in Australia?
> Galapagos tortoises in the Galapagos
> Nene geese on Hawaii?
> 
> And nowhere else?
> 
> The Theory of Evolution- along with continental drift explains why how they could exist where they exist.
> 
> How does the Bible explain it?
> 
> 
> 
> A GOD directed/manipulated dispersal after the FLOOD. If one believes in GOD, one can certainly try to figure out how GOD did it; however, one doesn't have to make up a "natural" rationalization. I mean I love koala bears --- GOD made Koala bears ---- He must love them!
Click to expand...

He made the devil and hell too


----------



## harmonica

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:
> 
> Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
> 
> and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
> Random does not produce intricate encryption.  Not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> god does not produce something from nothing not now, not ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created EVERYTHING both visible and invisible. I don't know where you get your info from.
Click to expand...

please prove there is a god


----------



## harmonica

..even if true--you people can't even begin to comprehend/explain heaven-hell-god-etc
..you have ZERO-NONE-NO knowledge/concept/*evidence /*idea of heaven-hell-god
..no one has seen them...all you have is your ''feelings''/hopes/wants/traditions/etc--that means nothing


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:
> 
> Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
> 
> and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
> Random does not produce intricate encryption.  Not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> god does not produce something from nothing not now, not ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created EVERYTHING both visible and invisible. I don't know where you get your info from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please prove there is a god
Click to expand...

He would have to kill you


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> ..even if true--you people can't even begin to comprehend/explain heaven-hell-god-etc
> ..you have ZERO-NONE-NO knowledge/concept/*evidence /*idea of heaven-hell-god
> ..no one has seen them...all you have is your ''feelings''/hopes/wants/traditions/etc--that means nothing


That’s the way things were until Moses. It wasn’t enough to believe a god exists they had to tell people it visited.


----------



## harmonica

there is no way humans can comprehend ''god''--who supposedly was there* BEFORE* the universe was created!!!  and _created _all things !!
...we can't even comprehend how far a light year is when all we do is travel by car/air/etc--except for a few--very very tiny few astronauts --and even they have traveled a TINY distance


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> ..even if true--you people can't even begin to comprehend/explain heaven-hell-god-etc
> ..you have ZERO-NONE-NO knowledge/concept/*evidence /*idea of heaven-hell-god
> ..no one has seen them...all you have is your ''feelings''/hopes/wants/traditions/etc--that means nothing


I truly enjoy debating the existence of a creator. It only gets annoying when a cult tells me that god visited


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> there is no way humans can comprehend ''god''--who supposedly was there BEFORE the universe was created!!!  and _created _all things !!
> ...we can't even comprehend how far a light year is when all we do is travel by car/air/etc--except for a few--very very tiny few astronauts --and even they have traveled a TINY distance


I think it’s ok for someone to want to give thanks to whatever is behind creating this beautiful universe that led to their existence. I don’t know if you need to stop and thank it seven times a day though.


----------



## harmonica

sealybobo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..even if true--you people can't even begin to comprehend/explain heaven-hell-god-etc
> ..you have ZERO-NONE-NO knowledge/concept/*evidence /*idea of heaven-hell-god
> ..no one has seen them...all you have is your ''feelings''/hopes/wants/traditions/etc--that means nothing
> 
> 
> 
> I truly enjoy debating the existence of a creator. It only gets annoying when a cult tells me that god visited
Click to expand...

it's only a *belief*
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
_noun_

the *belief *in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
and even if there is a god, they think they can interpret his wants/ideas/etc 
---maybe he wants people to be jealous/greedy/hateful/etc--because that is just human nature...etc


----------



## harmonica

that's why there are so many different religions, and then, sub religions of those 
so many different interpretations/STORIES/ideas/etc


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a pantheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god and hold a broad range of doctrines differing with regards to the forms of and relationships between divinity and reality.
> 
> Pantheism was popularized in Western culture as a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza,.7 particularly his book _Ethics_, published in 1677. The term "pantheism" was coined by Mathematician Joseph Raphson in 1697 and has since been used to describe the beliefs of a variety of people and organizations.
> 
> Pantheistic concepts date back thousands of years, and pantheistic elements have been identified in various religious traditions.
> 
> So, Mr. Einstein may not be in heaven, but it is likely because he had a paganised view of GOD that is quite old and had no Savior.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your diivne visions, Shaman, but Einstein's brand of "pantheism" is just sexed-up atheism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.


Awww, you poor, poor baby. Let's get you comfy and make sure the mean old world can't get to you and your adorable, magical nonsense. *pats Bond's head*


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> that's why there are so many different religions, and then, sub religions of those
> so many different interpretations/STORIES/ideas/etc


They all seem to have a truce with each other. Jews don’t call bs on the Jesus myth. Mormons keep their true belief about traditional Christianity on the down low. Christians can’t publically call bs on Islam because it’s no less ridiculous really


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a pantheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far you have been wrong about virtually everything.
> 
> Are you lying? Or are you delusional?
Click to expand...


To the contrary, I just accused you of lying and being delusional about Darwinian evolution.  I don't even think you know what it is or else explain briefly how it works.  Post links if you have them.  I already did that with what I learned through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Yet, we have many other explanations of evolution today such as epigenetic inheritance, adaptation, quantum evolution, punctuated equilibrium and more showing Darwin didn't get it right.  All of the aforementioned show for example, birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.

Here is an example of rapid evolution in birds.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.
> 
> 
> 
> Awww, you poor, poor baby. Let's get you comfy and make sure the mean old world can't get to you and your adorable, magical nonsense. *pats Bond's head*
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly content in believing in my worldview because it works for me and I can continue to live in the next life as I stated, "You only live twice."  I understand science and how it works.  Furthermore, I do not have to "prove" to every atheist and agnostic that God exists.  That is impossible, so I leave it up to Jesus.  He stands before everyone.  In terms of science, he is there as gravity, space and time.  No one can escape those three regardless of their position in the universe.  So, if one day you wake up and realize your pants are on fire, then there you go.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
Click to expand...


No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.

We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.

But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes. 

We were not molded out a pile of clay.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a pantheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far you have been wrong about virtually everything.
> 
> Are you lying? Or are you delusional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the contrary, I just accused you of lying and being delusional about Darwinian evolution.]
Click to expand...


Oh there is nothing about you lying or being delusional that interferes with your lies about me.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a pantheist.
> 
> 
> 
> ....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far you have been wrong about virtually everything.
> 
> Are you lying? Or are you delusional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post links if you have them.  I already did that with what I learned through evolution.berkeley.edu.  Yet, we have many other explanations of evolution today such as epigenetic inheritance, adaptation, quantum evolution, punctuated equilibrium and more showing Darwin didn't get it right.  All of the aforementioned show for example, birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.
> 
> Here is an example of rapid evolution in birds.
> ]
Click to expand...


You posted a link that didn't support your claims.  Which is a pretty hilarious fail.

Do we know more about evolution now than Darwin did over 100 years ago- certainly.  Darwin didn't know everything- just as Copernicus didn't know everything when upset the world view about astronomy.

But the theory of evolution is still the only theory that fits the evidence we have for the diversity of life on earth. 

As opposed to your Christianist 'theory' in which literally nothing fits with the world only being 6,000 years old.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> [Q  All of the aforementioned show for example, birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.
> 
> Here is an example of rapid evolution in birds.
> A]



A) Darwin never claimed that birds evolved from dinosaurs
B) Nothing you mentioned proves that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs- which is in and of itself a relatively modern theory.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.
> 
> 
> 
> Awww, you poor, poor baby. Let's get you comfy and make sure the mean old world can't get to you and your adorable, magical nonsense. *pats Bond's head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly content in believing in my worldview because it works for me and I can continue to live in the next life as I stated, "You only live twice."  I understand science and how it works.  Furthermore, I do not have to "prove" to every atheist and agnostic that God exists.  That is impossible, so I leave it up to Jesus.  He stands before everyone.  In terms of science, he is there as gravity, space and time.  No one can escape those three regardless of their position in the universe.  So, if one day you wake up and realize your pants are on fire, then there you go.
Click to expand...


And frankly I don't ask you to prove your god exists.

As long as you aren't denying science in the name of your god.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
Click to expand...

Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.

If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there.  (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms.  We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold.  This is as God designed.  He put limitations.  A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.)  If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation.  The arguments have come down to basically these two.  Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road.  Read the Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy link below.
> 
> Here is evidence of what I am talking about.  We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there.  One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found.  The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet.  Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found.  What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past.  That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life.  Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
> 
> What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below.  I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory.  When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself.  If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together .  Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning.  There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation.  The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed.  This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  The other link discusses the competing theories.  One even asks if a response is necessary.  It seems to state, "It is what it is."
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died.  In it he discusses why there are multiverses.  It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others.  Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle.  One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis.    Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
> 
> Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
> Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
> 
> Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason.  The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface?  No.  You think we sent a probe here and didn't find life and that's the end of it.  You couldn't be more wrong.  They did find something very promising and now we have to go back.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> "I think this is important enough that we will see a redirection in the planetary exploration program," Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn, told MSNBC.com. "We've just brought Enceladus up to the forefront as a major target of astrobiological interest."
> 
> The readings from Enceladus' geyser plumes indicate that all the prerequisites for life as we know it could exist beneath Enceladus' surface, Porco said.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> The third necessary ingredient — energy for fueling life's processes — could exist around hydrothermal vents around the bottom of Enceladus' water reservoirs, just as it does around Earth's deep-ocean hydrothermal vents.
> 
> Liquid water on Saturn moon could support life
Click to expand...


Sorry, sealybobo but missed this one.  My bet is on Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.  Someone else mentioned Titan, so will keep an eye on it as well as news about Mars.

It's interesting that they found lots of water on Enceladus.  However, I do not see it on my list of active solar system probes and your link is from 2006.  What happened to Enceladus?  Is there something else that prevents habitiblity?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason.  The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface?  No.  You think we sent a probe here and didn't find life and that's the end of it.  You couldn't be more wrong.  They did find something very promising and now we have to go back.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> "I think this is important enough that we will see a redirection in the planetary exploration program," Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn, told MSNBC.com. "We've just brought Enceladus up to the forefront as a major target of astrobiological interest."
> 
> The readings from Enceladus' geyser plumes indicate that all the prerequisites for life as we know it could exist beneath Enceladus' surface, Porco said.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
> 
> The third necessary ingredient — energy for fueling life's processes — could exist around hydrothermal vents around the bottom of Enceladus' water reservoirs, just as it does around Earth's deep-ocean hydrothermal vents.
> 
> Liquid water on Saturn moon could support life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, sealybobo but missed this one.  My bet is on Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.  Someone else mentioned Titan, so will keep an eye on it as well as news about Mars.
> 
> It's interesting that they found lots of water on Enceladus.  However, I do not see it on my list of active solar system probes and your link is from 2006.  What happened to Enceladus?  Is there something else that prevents habitiblity?
Click to expand...

Most missions are shelved. We aren’t going anytime soon


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.
> 
> These places have water, a hot core and the organic materials necessary for life.
> 
> And again, even if we find smart dolphins in Europa what will that prove? Will it make Christians not believe? I doubt it.
> 
> So why do so many fundamental Christians seem to be adamant that there is no other life on other planets? Either they want to believe that or there bible tells them..
> 
> I think they just want to believe we are alone. Makes them feel special but if aliens visited that wouldn’t shake their faith
Click to expand...


First, these are two different conversations.  One is finding life on another planet.  The second is whether humans can live on another planet, i.e. colonize another planet.  While the chances of the latter is greatly enhanced by finding life on another planets, ti isn't a necessary requirement.

If we found smart dolphins on another planet, then it would be a contradiction to the Bible and fine tuning parameters (facts) but it wouldn't necessarily mean that Christians will give up their beliefs.  I mean we haven't found any alien life and Darwinian evolution has admitted that life is rare, but that doesn't stop atheists from continuing to believe in Darwinian evolution.  Moreover, in arguing against the fine tuning facts, evolutionary thinking has led to the multiverse hypothesis .


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just idiotic.  Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.
> 
> These places have water, a hot core and the organic materials necessary for life.
> 
> And again, even if we find smart dolphins in Europa what will that prove? Will it make Christians not believe? I doubt it.
> 
> So why do so many fundamental Christians seem to be adamant that there is no other life on other planets? Either they want to believe that or there bible tells them..
> 
> I think they just want to believe we are alone. Makes them feel special but if aliens visited that wouldn’t shake their faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, these are two different conversations.  One is finding life on another planet.  The second is whether humans can live on another planet, i.e. colonize another planet.  While the chances of the latter is greatly enhanced by finding life on another planets, ti isn't a necessary requirement.
> 
> If we found smart dolphins on another planet, then it would be a contradiction to the Bible and fine tuning parameters (facts) but it wouldn't necessarily mean that Christians will give up their beliefs.  I mean we haven't found any alien life and Darwinian evolution has admitted that life is rare, but that doesn't stop atheists from continuing to believe in Darwinian evolution.  Moreover, in arguing against the fine tuning facts, evolutionary thinking has led to the multiverse hypothesis .
Click to expand...

Because we prefer more than one hypothesis or possible explanation. I’m open to other theories


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
Click to expand...


Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.

But we didn't. 

Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay. 

But we didn't.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
> 
> If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
> 
> What is your hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are these dwarf planets?  Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there?  So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system.  None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn).  My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
> 
> So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.
> 
> These places have water, a hot core and the organic materials necessary for life.
> 
> And again, even if we find smart dolphins in Europa what will that prove? Will it make Christians not believe? I doubt it.
> 
> So why do so many fundamental Christians seem to be adamant that there is no other life on other planets? Either they want to believe that or there bible tells them..
> 
> I think they just want to believe we are alone. Makes them feel special but if aliens visited that wouldn’t shake their faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, these are two different conversations.  One is finding life on another planet.  The second is whether humans can live on another planet, i.e. colonize another planet.  While the chances of the latter is greatly enhanced by finding life on another planets, ti isn't a necessary requirement.
> 
> If we found smart dolphins on another planet, then it would be a contradiction to the Bible and fine tuning parameters (facts) but it wouldn't necessarily mean that Christians will give up their beliefs.  I mean we haven't found any alien life and Darwinian evolution has admitted that life is rare, but that doesn't stop atheists from continuing to believe in Darwinian evolution.  Moreover, in arguing against the fine tuning facts, evolutionary thinking has led to the multiverse hypothesis .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we prefer more than one hypothesis or possible explanation. I’m open to other theories
Click to expand...


Sure- if there is any theory that the evidence better fits- then I would go with that theory.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
Click to expand...

The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiight.
> 
> What new species have developed in the past 400 years?
> 
> I know a few have gone extinct.
> 
> Give me an example of an observed new species and not pure crap, pls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the fifth time I have posted this in this thread. I fully expect you to explain why it doesn't count
> 
> I noticed the internet fairy tale believers still don't have the balls to respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Syriusly but missed this one since it wasn't addressed to me.   This is an evo argument listed in Talk Origins as follows:

"_No new species (alternately, "kinds") are evolving today._

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late Forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of _Scientific American_. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

[Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984]"

Do you have a link for your source "Instant Evolution," Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin?  Or the fist Saladin - Gish debate at Auburn U from 24 March 1984?

LMGTFY

The only articles I can find are:
Saladin-Gish Debate II

Talk:Evolution/creationism/kdbufallo - Wikipedia

Here's what my evo website says about speciation evidence and reproductive isolation:
Evidence for speciation:


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
Click to expand...




sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
Click to expand...


Does science back up the Bible?

Before cells, biochemicals may have combined in clay | Cornell Chronicle


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
Click to expand...

Here’s another theory. Life started on earth just after the last Great bombardment. We know mars meteors have made it to earth. We know mars had a better atmosphere for life before earth did. We know life can survive deep space. We know scientifically how evolution works. Long story short is we might be martians.

But then how did life start on mars you may ask. I think god did it.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
Click to expand...



We know nothing of the kind. You were not and never have been a monkey.
Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man.  When did monkeys stop turning into people? And why did evolution stop at Modern Man? 
We are from the earth.  I already gave you the element breakdown.  What do *you* think we are made of?


----------



## Old Rocks

Ram, your ignorance is completely visible. While we have some Neanderthal genes, we are a separate from them. We are homo sapiens, they were our close cousins, and most of our genetics come from the sapiens group that came out of Africa long after the Neanderthal had already colonized Europe and Asia. And we had a common ancestor with  the great apes, you have to go further back for an ancestor that was also the ancestor to the monkeys.


----------



## The Irish Ram

And you Rock are just a little bit smarter than some.  Not nearly as smart as others.
The reason Neanderthal DNA has been found in a few of us "Modern Man" is not because of genetics, but because Modern Man lived at *the same time* as Neanderthals.  And in rare cases may have bred with them.  There was no evolution from them to us.

Evolutionists tried to shove this garbage down our throats for decades.  And it has been shot to hell, Especially since we have discovered that pretend, part human Lucy was *not* the beginning of our journey.  They have now found two skeletons of Modern Man that are older than Lucy.  They were here before the whole Africa migration theory.  
\There is no missing link. You aren't as smart as you think.





You still think Neanderthal man is part of our genetic evolution to Modern man.  Science does not agree with you, and hasn't since the 70's.  They have kicked him out of our evolutionary chain.  You need to too.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know nothing of the kind. You were not and never have been a monkey.
> Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man.  When did monkeys stop turning into people? And why did evolution stop at Modern Man??
Click to expand...

I have never been a monkey- you got one thing right!
We didn't evolve from Neanderthals- I already explained that- so you are wrong there again.
Monkey's never turned into people- that is as silly and ignorant and claiming some fairy in the sky created people.
Why do you believe that Evolution ever stops?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> 
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are examples of new species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiight.
> 
> What new species have developed in the past 400 years?
> 
> I know a few have gone extinct.
> 
> Give me an example of an observed new species and not pure crap, pls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the fifth time I have posted this in this thread. I fully expect you to explain why it doesn't count
> 
> I noticed the internet fairy tale believers still don't have the balls to respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Syriusly but missed this one since it wasn't addressed to me.   This is an evo argument listed in Talk Origins as follows:
> 
> "_No new species (alternately, "kinds") are evolving today._
Click to expand...


So you still can't address the article I cited? 

This is now the sixth time I have posted this in this thread. I fully expect you to explain why it doesn't count

I noticed the internet fairy tale believers still don't have the balls to respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.









For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> [
> [Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984]"
> 
> Do you have a link for your source "Instant Evolution," Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin?  Or the fist Saladin - Gish debate at Auburn U from 24 March 1984?
> 
> LMGTFY
> 
> The only articles I can find are:
> Saladin-Gish Debate II
> 
> Talk:Evolution/creationism/kdbufallo - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's what my evo website says about speciation evidence and reproductive isolation:
> Evidence for speciation:



I have no idea why you are asking me for a source for "Instant Evolution".

I never mentioned it.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does science back up the Bible?
> 
> Before cells, biochemicals may have combined in clay | Cornell Chronicle
Click to expand...


Nope. Not any literal interpretation of the Bible.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> And you Rock are just a little bit smarter than some.  Not nearly as smart as others.
> The reason Neanderthal DNA has been found in a few of us "Modern Man" is not because of genetics, but because Modern Man lived at *the same time* as Neanderthals.  And in rare cases may have bred with them.  There was no evolution from them to us..



Hmmm that is part of genetics. 

The only reason why homo sapiens could breed with neanderthals is because we were genetically close enough to them to allow crossbreeding with fertile offspring. 

In other words- there was a common ancestor to both Neanderthals and homo sapiens. 

You are the only one here who argued that Man evolved from Neanderthals- even after I pointed out that wasn't so.


----------



## Syriusly

The Irish Ram said:


> And you Rock are just a little bit smarter than some.  Not nearly as smart as others.
> The reason Neanderthal DNA has been found in a few of us "Modern Man" is not because of genetics, but because Modern Man lived at *the same time* as Neanderthals.  And in rare cases may have bred with them.  There was no evolution from them to us.
> 
> Evolutionists tried to shove this garbage down our throats for decades.  And it has been shot to hell, Especially since we have discovered that pretend, part human Lucy was *not* the beginning of our journey.  They have now found two skeletons of Modern Man that are older than Lucy.  They were here before the whole Africa migration theory.
> \There is no missing link. You aren't as smart as you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think Neanderthal man is part of our genetic evolution to Modern man.  Science does not agree with you, and hasn't since the 70's.  They have kicked him out of our evolutionary chain.  You need to too.



LOL- so you posted a cartoon from a Christianist website to prove disprove evolution?

This just proves that you don't believe in science.


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know nothing of the kind. You were not and never have been a monkey.
> Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man.  When did monkeys stop turning into people? And why did evolution stop at Modern Man?
> We are from the earth.  I already gave you the element breakdown.  What do *you* think we are made of?
Click to expand...

Your questions prove you don’t know how evolution works. YouTube there is no first human. Watch it and report back that you understand there was no first human. And humans aren’t done evolving. You think evolution stopped?

See we can’t discuss seriously with someone who denies facts because he doesn’t know they are facts.

And if you want proof please provide any science that supports your theory. I mean science that has been peer reviewed and accepted


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> And you Rock are just a little bit smarter than some.  Not nearly as smart as others.
> The reason Neanderthal DNA has been found in a few of us "Modern Man" is not because of genetics, but because Modern Man lived at *the same time* as Neanderthals.  And in rare cases may have bred with them.  There was no evolution from them to us.
> 
> Evolutionists tried to shove this garbage down our throats for decades.  And it has been shot to hell, Especially since we have discovered that pretend, part human Lucy was *not* the beginning of our journey.  They have now found two skeletons of Modern Man that are older than Lucy.  They were here before the whole Africa migration theory.
> \There is no missing link. You aren't as smart as you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think Neanderthal man is part of our genetic evolution to Modern man.  Science does not agree with you, and hasn't since the 70's.  They have kicked him out of our evolutionary chain.  You need to too.


Ok so we didn’t come from Neanderthal but enough of us bred with them that we have red heads with Neanderthal dna in them. What’s the point?

Point is your ancestor was a monkey and before that a fury rodent who lived underground while dinosaurs ruled. Before that we lived under water. We evolved just like every other creature. From the water


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know nothing of the kind. You were not and never have been a monkey.
> Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man.  When did monkeys stop turning into people? And why did evolution stop at Modern Man??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been a monkey- you got one thing right!
> We didn't evolve from Neanderthals- I already explained that- so you are wrong there again.
> Monkey's never turned into people- that is as silly and ignorant and claiming some fairy in the sky created people.
> Why do you believe that Evolution ever stops?
Click to expand...

Before our brains grew we were just like monkeys


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you Rock are just a little bit smarter than some.  Not nearly as smart as others.
> The reason Neanderthal DNA has been found in a few of us "Modern Man" is not because of genetics, but because Modern Man lived at *the same time* as Neanderthals.  And in rare cases may have bred with them.  There was no evolution from them to us.
> 
> Evolutionists tried to shove this garbage down our throats for decades.  And it has been shot to hell, Especially since we have discovered that pretend, part human Lucy was *not* the beginning of our journey.  They have now found two skeletons of Modern Man that are older than Lucy.  They were here before the whole Africa migration theory.
> \There is no missing link. You aren't as smart as you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think Neanderthal man is part of our genetic evolution to Modern man.  Science does not agree with you, and hasn't since the 70's.  They have kicked him out of our evolutionary chain.  You need to too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- so you posted a cartoon from a Christianist website to prove disprove evolution?
> 
> This just proves that you don't believe in science.
Click to expand...

More importantly it proves that Christianity is anti science.

When Christians ask why I think religion is bad for people I should introduce exhibit A. Your honor I give you the Irish ram


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know nothing of the kind. You were not and never have been a monkey.
> Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man.  When did monkeys stop turning into people? And why did evolution stop at Modern Man?
> We are from the earth.  I already gave you the element breakdown.  What do *you* think we are made of?
Click to expand...

A species of monkey that branches off into us grew big brains.

We are probably making monkeys and dogs much smarter than they would be without us. Maybe one day we’ll have talking monkeys maybe even dogs.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says.  Here is our breakdown:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know nothing of the kind. You were not and never have been a monkey.
> Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man.  When did monkeys stop turning into people? And why did evolution stop at Modern Man?
> We are from the earth.  I already gave you the element breakdown.  What do *you* think we are made of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A species of monkey that branches off into us grew big brains.
> 
> We are probably making monkeys and dogs much smarter than they would be without us. Maybe one day we’ll have talking monkeys maybe even dogs.
Click to expand...


Well since both monkeys and dogs lack the essential physical equipment for talking- I hope you won't be holding your breath.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> He’s actually right this time.
> 
> Some kind of mold, dna, organic protein or amino acid in clay (I’m no scientist) started life on the planet. The single sell split, had sex, and evolved into all the life we see today.
> 
> So we did come from the earth. What are you now suggesting life just pooped into existence? If we weren’t crafted out of the earth where do you think we came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know nothing of the kind. You were not and never have been a monkey.
> Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man.  When did monkeys stop turning into people? And why did evolution stop at Modern Man??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never been a monkey- you got one thing right!
> We didn't evolve from Neanderthals- I already explained that- so you are wrong there again.
> Monkey's never turned into people- that is as silly and ignorant and claiming some fairy in the sky created people.
> Why do you believe that Evolution ever stops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before our brains grew we were just like monkeys
Click to expand...


Nope- you pretty much have that backwards. 

Apes are not monkeys.  Both evolved from common ancestors- as humans did. 

The larger brain size was just one of the latest differences between us and monkeys.


----------



## Syriusly

New evidence about the human occupation of Asia is cascading in | Aeon Essays

Interesting article about how humans spread out of Africa to the rest of the world.

And it shows we still have so much to learn- not so much whether evolution is real- that is in no doubt by real scientists- but how exactly modern humans evolved- and spread throughout the world- well that is evolving as we gather more and more data.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Tell me how many millions of years it took for us to evolve from Neanderthal Man


We didn't evolve from neanderthals. You really need to read up on this topic before opening your mouth about it again.


The Irish Ram said:


> When did monkeys stop turning into people?


Monkeys never turned into people. Hjmans and monkeys have a common ancestor. Again...that question betrays your complete ignorance of this topic.


The Irish Ram said:


> And why did evolution stop at Modern Man?


It didn't. Where do you get this nonsense? See, this is what happens when you get your science education from religious blogs.


----------



## toobfreak

sealybobo said:


> Ok so we didn’t come from Neanderthal



300 posts later and still not one person with enough sense to learn biology expecting to have all the answers handed to them on a message board?  Single cell life didn't give "birth" to multi-cell life, two different single cell organisms developed a symbiotic relationship about 2 billion years ago and formed a colony organism where the one incorporated into the other and took on one function while the other, took another function, each aiding the other and specialized cells were developed.  Likewise, Homoneanderthalenis came first off one branch of primate followed by Homo Sapiens off another branch, both lived side by side, but Neanderthal was less well adapted and died over time.  If you really want to learn how new species develop, read:  The Malay Archipelago by Alfred Russel Wallace, the true originator of the theory of the evolution of the species, not Darwin who usurped his work to take credit and get published before Wallace was given the credit he deserved (Wallace was sending him letters of his revelations and work not realizing that Darwin was in competition against him):

The Malay Archipelago, Volume 1 by Alfred Russel Wallace

Mutations happen all of the time, but put simply, mutations which benefit a species to make them better to survive prosper while mutations which make a species less well adapted die out, thus the origin of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

If you want an example, one of the best was the flying frog that Wallace discovered, that contrary to popular belief of the time that God created the species, was poorly adapted to flying.

Wallace's flying frog - Wikipedia

It was through studying this that Wallace made the realization that God could not create so many millions of species with such minute variations, what would be the point?  And if he did, why would he create ones so poorly adapted to their needs?  If God wanted a frog to fly, why wouldn't he just give it wings?  And upon that line of thought, he realized that frog was a species caught in the glimpse of human timeline that was in the process of slowly adapting from one species to another.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> [Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984]"
> 
> Do you have a link for your source "Instant Evolution," Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin?  Or the fist Saladin - Gish debate at Auburn U from 24 March 1984?
> 
> LMGTFY
> 
> The only articles I can find are:
> Saladin-Gish Debate II
> 
> Talk:Evolution/creationism/kdbufallo - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's what my evo website says about speciation evidence and reproductive isolation:
> Evidence for speciation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you are asking me for a source for "Instant Evolution".
> 
> I never mentioned it.
Click to expand...


How can I give you the creation scientists take on goatsbeard when it was presented in the Sladin-Gish debate in 1984?  Your 


Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> [Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984]"
> 
> Do you have a link for your source "Instant Evolution," Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin?  Or the fist Saladin - Gish debate at Auburn U from 24 March 1984?
> 
> LMGTFY
> 
> The only articles I can find are:
> Saladin-Gish Debate II
> 
> Talk:Evolution/creationism/kdbufallo - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's what my evo website says about speciation evidence and reproductive isolation:
> Evidence for speciation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you are asking me for a source for "Instant Evolution".
> 
> I never mentioned it.
Click to expand...


I don't have the young earth creation scientist argument against it then.

The argument against your goatsbeard cited polyploidy and not a new species.  It was made by Rich Deem, an old earth creationist. .

Intentional Deception by Evolutionists


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- we didn't 'come from the earth' anymore than a  book comes from the earth.
> 
> We really don't know how life on earth came into being- lots of theories- but no evidence.
> 
> But none of that is necessary for the theory of evolution. We know that humans evolved from other humanoids, and have common ancestors with great apes.
> 
> We were not molded out a pile of clay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does science back up the Bible?
> 
> Before cells, biochemicals may have combined in clay | Cornell Chronicle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Not any literal interpretation of the Bible.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Cornell studies just backed it up.


----------



## james bond

I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face.  Epic fail.  What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the monkey come from? It was a rodent mammal. Before that a fish. Before that a multi cell organism. Before that a single cell organism. That single cell organism happened in clay. Oddly enough all life did come from the earth.
> 
> If you don’t believe that where do you think humanoids came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does science back up the Bible?
> 
> Before cells, biochemicals may have combined in clay | Cornell Chronicle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Not any literal interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Cornell studies just backed it up.
Click to expand...


LOL and of course Cornell doesn't dispute evolution at all.

Christianists and their fairy tales.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> [Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984]"
> 
> Do you have a link for your source "Instant Evolution," Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin?  Or the fist Saladin - Gish debate at Auburn U from 24 March 1984?
> 
> LMGTFY
> 
> The only articles I can find are:
> Saladin-Gish Debate II
> 
> Talk:Evolution/creationism/kdbufallo - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's what my evo website says about speciation evidence and reproductive isolation:
> Evidence for speciation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you are asking me for a source for "Instant Evolution".
> 
> I never mentioned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I give you the creation scientists take on goatsbeard when it was presented in the Sladin-Gish debate in 1984?  Your
Click to expand...


How about trying your own words? You have yet to respond to the content of the article I cited
Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.









For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> [
> The argument against your goatsbeard cited polyploidy and not a new species.  It was made by Rich Deem, an old earth creationist. .
> 
> Intentional Deception by Evolutionists


LOL I love your citations! 

_Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event._

That was your 'citations' gotcha

Except....it isn't true

_But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While* they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
*_
*and again:*
_
Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, *but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.*_


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face.  Epic fail.  What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?



Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly if you want to claim that a book comes from clay, then you can also argue that humans come from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Perhaps our earliest ancestor came from clay.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does science back up the Bible?
> 
> Before cells, biochemicals may have combined in clay | Cornell Chronicle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Not any literal interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Cornell studies just backed it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL and of course Cornell doesn't dispute evolution at all.
> 
> Christianists and their fairy tales.
Click to expand...

Great point. Show us any reputable university that denies evolution.

If it’s a Christian university that disqualifies it. Bias.

Does Norte dame deny evolution?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face.  Epic fail.  What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.
Click to expand...


That's a non-sequitur.  You make no sense at all.

You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.  It doesn't happen but we do see rapid evolution.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I say clay is because these science shows suggest clay is the perfect environment for life to get started in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does science back up the Bible?
> 
> Before cells, biochemicals may have combined in clay | Cornell Chronicle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Not any literal interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Cornell studies just backed it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL and of course Cornell doesn't dispute evolution at all.
> 
> Christianists and their fairy tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great point. Show us any reputable university that denies evolution.
> 
> If it’s a Christian university that disqualifies it. Bias.
> 
> Does Norte dame deny evolution?
Click to expand...


Two reasons.  They don't deny Darwinian evolution because it would cut off funding.  Darwinian evolution is primarily in biology, paleontology, zoology and geology, so it's limited in scope. 

What we notice is their research backs up what is stated in the Bible as it was above..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.


Of course we can . Where do you get this nonsense?

PS- nobody is going to watch thiose idiotic videos.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The argument against your goatsbeard cited polyploidy and not a new species.  It was made by Rich Deem, an old earth creationist. .
> 
> Intentional Deception by Evolutionists
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I love your citations!
> 
> _Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event._
> 
> That was your 'citations' gotcha
> 
> Except....it isn't true
> 
> _But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While* they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> *_
> *and again:*
> _
> Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, *but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.*_
Click to expand...


Atheists are usually wrong.  Here you are wrong twice -- goatsbeard and tetrapods.  What Deem said wasn't a chromosomal duplication event.  He stated polyploidy which you do not understand.

"Polyploidy is common among plants and has been, in fact, a major source of speciation in the angiosperms. Particularly important is allopolyploidy, which involves the doubling of chromosomes in a hybrid plant. Normally a hybrid is sterile because it does not have the required homologous pairs of chromosomes for successful gamete formation during meiosis. If through polyploidy, however, the plant duplicates the chromosome set inherited from each parent, meiosis can occur, because each chromosome will have a homologue derived from its duplicate set. Thus, polyploidy confers fertility on the formerly sterile hybrid, which thereby attains the status of a full species distinct from either of its parents. It has been estimated that up to half of the known angiosperm species arose through polyploidy, including some of the species most prized by man. Plant breeders utilize this process, treating desirable hybrids with chemicals, such as colchicine, that are known to induce polyploidy.

Polyploid animals are far less common, and the process appears to have had little effect on animal speciation."

Polyploidy | genetics


----------



## james bond

You know@Syriusly, the link you posted favors my argument that Darwinian evolution is wrong than favors Darwinism.



Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can . Where do you get this nonsense?
> 
> PS- nobody is going to watch thiose idiotic videos.
Click to expand...


Oh sh*t.  I'm not talking to you about science.  You're too dumb AF to understand.


----------



## james bond

You know Syriusly.  That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.

"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."

Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.

We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.

"But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: _Heliconius_ butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."

The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.

"The apple maggot fly, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ began the long journey of speciation.

As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes."

I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.

"Orcas (_Orcinus orca_), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.

Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years."

This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.

So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments.  ROTFL.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> You know Syriusly.  That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.
> 
> "Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."
> 
> Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.
> 
> We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.
> 
> "But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: _Heliconius_ butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.
> 
> It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."
> 
> The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.
> 
> "The apple maggot fly, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ began the long journey of speciation.
> 
> As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes."
> 
> I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.
> 
> "Orcas (_Orcinus orca_), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.
> 
> Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years."
> 
> This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.
> 
> So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments.  ROTFL.


How? Where?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You know@Syriusly, the link you posted favors my argument that Darwinian evolution is wrong than favors Darwinism.
> 
> You won't talk to me because I embarrass you . You know less than nothing about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can . Where do you get this nonsense?
> 
> PS- nobody is going to watch thiose idiotic videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh sh*t.  I'm not talking to you about science.  You're too dumb AF to understand.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> You know Syriusly.  That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.
> 
> "Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."
> 
> Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.
> 
> We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.
> 
> "But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: _Heliconius_ butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.
> 
> It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."
> 
> The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.
> 
> "The apple maggot fly, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ began the long journey of speciation.
> 
> As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes."
> 
> I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.
> 
> "Orcas (_Orcinus orca_), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.
> 
> Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years."
> 
> This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.
> 
> So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments.  ROTFL.


This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face.  Epic fail.  What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a non-sequitur.  You make no sense at all.
> 
> You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.  It doesn't happen but we do see rapid evolution.]
Click to expand...


Just pointing out that the hucksters love them their Youtube video's 'proving' crap.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Syriusly.  That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.
> 
> "Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."
> 
> Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.
> 
> We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.
> 
> "But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: _Heliconius_ butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.
> 
> It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."
> 
> The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.
> 
> "The apple maggot fly, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, _Rhagoletis pomonella_ began the long journey of speciation.
> 
> As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes."
> 
> I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.
> 
> "Orcas (_Orcinus orca_), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.
> 
> Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years."
> 
> This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.
> 
> So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments.  ROTFL.
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
Click to expand...








woot!


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face.  Epic fail.  What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a non-sequitur.  You make no sense at all.
> 
> You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.  It doesn't happen but we do see rapid evolution.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing out that the hucksters love them their Youtube video's 'proving' crap.
Click to expand...


It just goes to show that you have no response to the anti-darwinian arguments.  You are done.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> You know Syriusly.  That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 
> So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments.



I am not sure why you are arguing against 'Darwinian evolution'.

When I am talking about  the science of evolution.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face.  Epic fail.  What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a non-sequitur.  You make no sense at all.
> 
> You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.  It doesn't happen but we do see rapid evolution.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing out that the hucksters love them their Youtube video's 'proving' crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just goes to show that you have no response to the anti-darwinian arguments.  You are done.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you have an actual argument.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> I am not sure why you are arguing against 'Darwinian evolution'.
> 
> When I am talking about  the science of evolution.



Here's the science of evolution from Syriusly.  I guess you mean the ToE from your hero worship boy Darwin.  We can't see it happen because it's so slow but it's there.  From magic.






 .



Syriusly said:


> Let me know when you have an actual argument.








You are done and were done years ago.  I provided the evidence and stuck a giant fork in you.  So butthurt.

Even the media agreed with me around 2010, 2011 time period.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors



You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?


----------



## james bond

The Irish Ram said:


> And you Rock are just a little bit smarter than some.  Not nearly as smart as others.
> The reason Neanderthal DNA has been found in a few of us "Modern Man" is not because of genetics, but because Modern Man lived at *the same time* as Neanderthals.  And in rare cases may have bred with them.  There was no evolution from them to us.
> 
> Evolutionists tried to shove this garbage down our throats for decades.  And it has been shot to hell, Especially since we have discovered that pretend, part human Lucy was *not* the beginning of our journey.  They have now found two skeletons of Modern Man that are older than Lucy.  They were here before the whole Africa migration theory.
> \There is no missing link. You aren't as smart as you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think Neanderthal man is part of our genetic evolution to Modern man.  Science does not agree with you, and hasn't since the 70's.  They have kicked him out of our evolutionary chain.  You need to too.



I just found something interesting on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  Lucy or australopithecus afarensis has been deleted from human evolution.  They are using ardipithecus now.





Syriusly was made a monkey of again .

The emergence of humans


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
Click to expand...

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you. 

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why you are arguing against 'Darwinian evolution'.
> 
> When I am talking about  the science of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the science of evolution from Syriusly.  I guess you mean the ToE from your hero worship boy Darwin.  We can't see it happen because it's so slow but it's there.  From magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you have an actual argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are done and were done years ago.  I provided the evidence and stuck a giant fork in you.  So butthurt.
> 
> Even the media agreed with me around 2010, 2011 time period.
> 
> Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
Click to expand...

Didn’t I tell you our dinosaur ancestor lived 3 million years ago and it turned warm blooded 2.6 million years ago? So it took 400,000 years to change slowly. No pelycosaur gave birth to a cynodont overnight


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It just goes to show that you have no response to the anti-darwinian arguments


Haha...are you feckin serious right now? Well go ahead, big guy...publish your "anti evolution" science. Encourage the deniers you are regurgitating to do the same.

Why aren't you? Why aren't they? Why isn't ANYONE?

I can think of an easy answer: you are all wrong and delusional and have not a shred of evidence, empirical or otherwise, to support your hilarious nonsense. Oh....and all of the evidence stands against you and is mutually supportive and supportive of evolution.

Carry on, cackler....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs


No dummy...birds ARE dinosaurs. And the "evos" -- i.e., every respected biologist on the planet -- are saying this, not the garbage you just made up.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
Click to expand...


So you think we came from dinosaurs? 






I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory. 

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.











Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.











Using the tree for classification


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we came from dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory.
> 
> What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the tree for classification
Click to expand...

When you hiccup that goes back to when we crawled out of the water.

Ever look at a new fetus? Can’t tell a human from a aligator


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we came from dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory.
> 
> What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the tree for classification
Click to expand...


A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.

*Mammals* evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).

See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously.  You have a problem with way too many facts.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we came from dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory.
> 
> What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the tree for classification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.
> 
> *Mammals* evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).
> 
> See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously.  You have a problem with way too many facts.
Click to expand...


I'll keep it in mind.

Is it me who has too many facts or is it you?  Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them.  It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."  You have to determine which side is lying in these situations.  My answer to that is I don't know for every question or situation (trying to leave God out of this).  However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.






We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism.  So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s).


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we came from dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory.
> 
> What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the tree for classification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.
> 
> *Mammals* evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).
> 
> See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously.  You have a problem with way too many facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep it in mind.
> 
> Is it me who has too many facts or is it you?   However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
Click to expand...


And as a demonstration of 'facts' you have a cartoon from a Christianist website?
Human Family Tree

LOL How about we go to a real source- like the Smithsonian


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we came from dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory.
> 
> What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the tree for classification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.
> 
> *Mammals* evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).
> 
> See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously.  You have a problem with way too many facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep it in mind.
> 
> Is it me who has too many facts or is it you?  Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them.  It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." .
Click to expand...


Well lets talk about lies and liars:

Here is what you claimed- lets examine the 'truthiness' of these claims:

_*Even Prof Owen Lovejoy who put Lucy, the first ape-human, together thinks apes evolved from humans. 
*
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/krigbaum/proseminar/Lovejoy_1988_SA.pdf
In this article Prof. Lovejoy discusses bipedalism and how Lucy has so much more in common with modern humans than with apes. No mention of 'apes evolving from humans'

Nor does Prof Owen mention any 'ape-humans'.

"One effect of chimpanzee-centric models of human evolution has been a tendency to view Australopithecus as transitional between an apelike ancestor and early Homo. Ardipithecus ramidus nullifies these presumptions," wrote C. Owen Lovejoy, a Kent State University anthropologist, in Science. "No ape exhibits an even remotely similar evolutionary trajectory to that revealed by Ardipithecus.
_
*So where does Lovejoy say that 'apes evolved from humans?"*_

So 

*Richard Leakey, famed paleoanthropologist, thinks Lucy is from three different species
*_
"Echoing the criticism made of his father's Homo habilis skulls, he (Richard Leakey) added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination, made of plaster of paris,' thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

This is the supposed quote by Richard Leakey- that he supposedly made in 1983 in an Australian newspaper. But there is no image of this article- so we really don't know what Leakey actually said. 

You have a real source other than just a reference from a Christianist website declaring it to be so?

Because I can't find any primary source to support this claim.


----------



## Syriusly

Some of the 'greatest hits' from Bond:


On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.
So what were dinosaurs and when did they exist? Why do we not have skeletons of Adam and Ever?


Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.
We are still waiting for how the 'facts' are explained by creation. 


Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science.

And again- which you run away from- no 'evolutionist' teaches that fish started walking- so you are just lying about evolution and those who prefer science. 


Creation is plausible and more scientific
There is absolutely no science that supports the idea that a fairy in the sky poofed all life into existence nor any scientific evidence that for instance- that plants were created before the sun. 


The horshoe crab is evidence for creation. There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort. They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.
Prove that the horseshoe crab today is identical to our fossil horseshoes (3 different species)


OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time
Who was 'surprised'? Surprised that a species we had seen no living examples of- only fossils was found? Sure. Surprised that the living coealacanth is so similar to the fossils of millions of years ago- nope. 


Another living fossil would be the ape and chimpanzee.
What 'ape'? LOL. So to the Christianist- any species which we have fossil evidence of similar creatures going back- what 100,000 years- is a 'living fossil'- when you only believe the world is 6,000 years old?


----------



## Marion Morrison

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.


----------



## Syriusly

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms- 
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Syriusly said:


> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.



List the new species that have developed in recorded history.


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.



Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are. 

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.









For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List the new species that have developed in recorded history.
Click to expand...


Here is one. This is the 8th time I have posted this in this thread. 
Reading comprehension is not strong with the donkey fuckers. 

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.









For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species


----------



## Marion Morrison

Syriusly said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species
Click to expand...


Ooo..1 species of flower did a reproducable hybrid thing. Anything else? BTW, I know someone who "made" their own flower.

That's not a new species, it's interbreeding for hybridization.

Anything else? Because that's still variants on the same species.


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooo..1 species of flower did a reproducable hybrid thing. Anything else? BTW, I know someone who "made" their own flower.
> 
> That's not a new species, it's interbreeding for hybridization.
> 
> Anything else? Because that's still variants on the same species.
Click to expand...


_They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species_


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we came from dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory.
> 
> What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the tree for classification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.
> 
> *Mammals* evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).
> 
> See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously.  You have a problem with way too many facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep it in mind.
> 
> Is it me who has too many facts or is it you?  Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them.  It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."  You have to determine which side is lying in these situations.  My answer to that is I don't know for every question or situation (trying to leave God out of this).  However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism.  So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s).
Click to expand...


You know what I love?  I love how the right now suggests that the global warming scientists are the ones who are lying because they want to keep their jobs.  

It couldn't possibly be the corporations who are going to have to pay more to go green.  No.  Somehow the Republicans have convinced you guys that it's the scientists who are lying.  

We all know why evolution bothers theists.  They can't stand the idea that humans are just animals.  They/you want to believe you/we are special.  Well we are but we aren't so special that god made all this for us.  We just happen to be at the top of the food chain and we are smart enough to wonder.  That's it.  We aren't even that evolved yet. Hell most of us are just 2 generations away from our ancestors living the exact same way they did 3000 years ago.  Were your parents farmers?  Then they aren't that evolved.  

I think you have all kinds of things confused.  And that makes you confusing.  Pseudoscientific racism?  What the hell does that mean or have to do with our discussion?  

Sorry but you're going to have to re explain this one:  You said, "We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism.  So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s).  HUH?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what bugs me about this?  The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs.  They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs.  No more mention of reptiles.  Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles.  I think.  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.
> 
> Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we came from dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was helping you.  We still have the common ancestor theory.
> 
> What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers.  The layers are where creatures died.  That's it.  No time associated with it.  I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor.  Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds.  I don't think it did.  Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development.  What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures.  Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the tree for classification
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.
> 
> *Mammals* evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).
> 
> See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously.  You have a problem with way too many facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep it in mind.
> 
> Is it me who has too many facts or is it you?  Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them.  It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."  You have to determine which side is lying in these situations.  My answer to that is I don't know for every question or situation (trying to leave God out of this).  However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism.  So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s).
Click to expand...


I looked up Ardipithecus and it says 

Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the chimpanzees

Behavioral analysis showed that _Ardipithecus_could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.


----------



## sealybobo

Marion Morrison said:


> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.


Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?

P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up


----------



## sealybobo

Marion Morrison said:


> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.



We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history.  You are correct no new species have developed since then.  So what?  What do you think that proves?  





Would you like to make Marsupials another species?  Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?


----------



## Marion Morrison

sealybobo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history.  You are correct no new species have developed since then.  So what?  What do you think that proves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to make Marsupials another species?  Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?
Click to expand...


Of course you were there to document this, right?


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooo..1 species of flower did a reproducable hybrid thing. Anything else? BTW, I know someone who "made" their own flower.
> 
> That's not a new species, it's interbreeding for hybridization.
> 
> Anything else? Because that's still variants on the same species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species_
Click to expand...


I think what he wants to see is an entirely new species pop up.  So we would have 

Mammals
Fish
Bird
Reptiles
Insects
Amphibians
Forfignugens

If no forfignugens pop up he will continue to be stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

Marion Morrison said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history.  You are correct no new species have developed since then.  So what?  What do you think that proves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to make Marsupials another species?  Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
Click to expand...

That's what my dad says when I try to explain science to him.  He gets loud and says, "WERE THEY THERE?  WERE YOU THERE?"  

Shut up you stupid old man.  LOL  

Did OJ kill his wife?


----------



## Marion Morrison

sealybobo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history.  You are correct no new species have developed since then.  So what?  What do you think that proves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to make Marsupials another species?  Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what my dad says when I try to explain science to him.  He gets loud and says, "WERE THEY THERE?  WERE YOU THERE?"
> 
> Shut up you stupid old man.  LOL
> 
> Did OJ kill his wife?
Click to expand...


No. If he did, he had just cause, now fuck off, faggot.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Marion Morrison said:


> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.



LOL

Sorry, old poot, every species has evolved from a predecessor, going back more than three billion years


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history.  You are correct no new species have developed since then.  So what?  What do you think that proves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to make Marsupials another species?  Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?
Click to expand...


Those are not species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> So, if we're looking at atheist science


As if there is any such thing...so mindnumbingly stupid....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.


Well, you are a fool who knows less than nothing about any of this, and all of the evidence shows you are wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Of course you were there to document this, right?


What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.
Click to expand...


Au contraire, shortbus rider.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Au contraire, shortbus rider.
Click to expand...

Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....

You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> And as a demonstration of 'facts' you have a cartoon from a Christianist website?
> Human Family Tree
> 
> LOL How about we go to a real source- like the Smithsonian
> View attachment 186131



LOL is right.  You accuse me of using biased sources when you post the Smithsonian which is a biased website for evos and full of atheist scientists.  

Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism

Did you really go to Chimp U?  You also posted a link from SA that favors my arguments.  It was ROTFL hilarious.  You should be the one to believe that humans came from dinosaurs.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as a demonstration of 'facts' you have a cartoon from a Christianist website?
> Human Family Tree
> 
> LOL How about we go to a real source- like the Smithsonian
> View attachment 186131
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL is right.  You accuse me of using biased sources when you post the Smithsonian which is a biased website for evos and full of atheist scientists.
> 
> Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism
> 
> Did you really go to Chimp U?  You also posted a link from SA that favors my arguments.  It was ROTFL hilarious.  You should be the one to believe that humans came from dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


Yes- I dare use a site known for being 'biased' towards science. 

You believe whacky Christianist cartoons because.

I recognize the science that one of most respective scientific institutions presents.

But then again- you believe in fairies in the sky and that plants came to life- before we had a sun.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Smithsonian which is a biased website for evos and full of atheist scientists.


Haha...you embarrass yourself....

Just let this idiot talk.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
Click to expand...


>>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
Click to expand...

Of course, in what the rest of us call, "reality", the similarity of embryos is strong circumstantial evidence for evolution, with embryology and genetics completely sealing the deal with irrefutable, empirical evidence.

Scientists have mountains of mutually supportive evidence...nutball here ^^ has nothing but his gut  feelings and a bronze age book of fairy tales.

Gee, tough call...


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
Click to expand...


LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Au contraire, shortbus rider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....
> 
> You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.
Click to expand...


Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
Good luck with that. 

Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Au contraire, shortbus rider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....
> 
> You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!
Click to expand...


Always fascinating to hear from the Donkey fucking Christianists.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
Click to expand...


Tree of life is not a metaphor.  More stuff you got in your head from Chimp U.  It's phylogeny and an hypothesis about relationships among organisms.

No.  Bush of life is phylogeny, too, but different than the ToL hypothesis.  It's relatively new.

The Tree of Life may be more like a bush

As for Lucy and the rest, It may be a drawing, but it does show the FRAUD OF EVOS which you have ignored and cannot debunk.

Before I forget, here's the Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy argument for apes evolved from humans on the Kent State U official website.  Read it and weep sucker.

Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University


----------



## Marion Morrison

Syriusly said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Au contraire, shortbus rider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....
> 
> You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always fascinating to hear from the Donkey fucking Christianists.
Click to expand...


Funny, I've never been to Tijuana, yet your passport says you've been there 7x, sup?

PS: You put forth bullshit.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history.  You are correct no new species have developed since then.  So what?  What do you think that proves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to make Marsupials another species?  Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not species.
Click to expand...


Taxonomy fail for sealybobo.  My evo website uses the cladistic taxinomy based on common ancestor.  Still trying to get a handle on it.


----------



## james bond

You notice sealybobo never answered my question of where he got the above graphic.  Ernst Haeckl was involved in some controversy as

"He became convinced he had discovered the most basic law of evolution:  “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” or the development of an embryo (ontogeny) is a speeded-up replay of the evolution of the species (phylogeny).  It was an enormously influential idea, utilized by both Darwin and Huxley, who were impressed with Haeckel’s detailed illustrations comparing development in various animals and man.  In their earlier stages, according to Haeckel’s drawings, pigeons, dogs and humans looked identical.

This recapitulation theory enjoyed a tremendous vogue for a few decades, but eventually proved too vague to be of much use in research.  Before it was discredited, however, it shaped scientific thought of the period, including the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud.

When critics brought charges of extensive retouching and outrageous “fudging” in his famous embryo illustrations, Haeckel replied he was only trying to make them more accurate than the faulty specimens on which they were based.8"

Michael K. Richardson (department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, St. George’s Hospital Medial School, London, United Kingdom) co-authored a paper that appeared in _Research News_, 5 September 1997, page 1435. That paper produced such a reaction that he wrote a letter to Science in which he (and the other five co-authors from four other countries) attempted to defend both their belief in evolution and their criticism of Haeckel. In that letter they said,

"Unfortunately Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his drawings with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly. He did not show significant differences between species, even though his theories allowed for embryonic variation. …We therefore show here a more accurate representation of vertebrate embryos at three arbitrary stages, including the approximate stage (fig. 1, column 3), which Haeckel showed to be identical. 9 [The letter showed photographs of human, bat, cat, possum, chicken, snake, hellbender, axoloti, lungfish, salmon, gar, dogfish, and lamprey embryos, all of which look remarkably different.]"

8 Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, (1990) pages 205 - 206 (Ev+)
9 Richardson, et al., _Science_, Vol. 280, 15 May 1998, “Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution” page 983. (Ev)"

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i7f.htm#footnote8

Heh.  More evo shenanigans.  Syriusly you criticize the evo drawings apes to man, but it didn't use fake science like Ernst Haeckel.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
Click to expand...

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
Click to expand...


My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.


----------



## james bond

Listen to this guy.  He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution.  Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.

From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were there to document this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Au contraire, shortbus rider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....
> 
> You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!
Click to expand...

You sure do bring up homosexuality a lot....cowboy. 

Why would anyone spend an ounce of energy trying  to prove anything to you? You believe the dumbest shit regardless of facts...might as well try to teach a dog calculus.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You notice sealybobo never answered my question of where he got the above graphic.


Because that is irrelevant. The principle the graphic represents is a staple of modern science. You can find the same information from any reputable source. Your siirrces are garbage and are producing zero science and have zero evidence. You are embarrassing yourself


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You notice sealybobo never answered my question of where he got the above graphic.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is irrelevant. The principle the graphic represents is a staple of modern science. You can find the same information from any reputable source. Your siirrces are garbage and are producing zero science and have zero evidence. You are embarrassing yourself
Click to expand...

And I still don’t know what he’s suggesting. Did god lay a fish that would lead to humans and another fish that led to frogs because either we are all related or we all formed separately and still every land animal was once a fish. If he’s arguing that god poofed land animals into existence I need to know


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
Click to expand...

Maybe your evo website is bs


----------



## LittleNipper

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay my challenge to all of you Christianists who  believe that the Bible is literal truth- that life was poofed into existence the first 6 days the Universe existed and that all life was wiped out in the Flood except marine life and what was on Noah's Ark.
> 
> How did the life on earth end up where it ended up?
> 
> Elephant Birds on Madagascar?
> Kangaroos in Australia?
> Galapagos tortoises in the Galapagos
> Nene geese on Hawaii?
> 
> And nowhere else?
> 
> The Theory of Evolution- along with continental drift explains why how they could exist where they exist.
> 
> How does the Bible explain it?
> 
> 
> 
> A GOD directed/manipulated dispersal after the FLOOD. If one believes in GOD, one can certainly try to figure out how GOD did it; however, one doesn't have to make up a "natural" rationalization. I mean I love koala bears --- GOD made Koala bears ---- He must love them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He made the devil and hell too
Click to expand...

God created a perfect angel. That angel decided he was as good as GOD. God created hell as a prison for all the angels who revolted.


----------



## harmonica

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific 
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe your evo website is bs
Click to expand...


The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS.  Chronological layers is BS.  Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years.  Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life.  We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads.  As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree.  We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species.  We are related via human species.  Three separate bushes.

ETA:  Holy guacamole.  It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.

"Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.

“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"*What's Wrong with Bushes?*
63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe your evo website is bs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS.  Chronological layers is BS.  Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years.  Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life.  We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads.  As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree.  We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species.  We are related via human species.  Three separate bushes.
> 
> ETA:  Holy guacamole.  It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.
> 
> "Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.
> 
> “… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”
> 
> 1]"
> 
> ...
> 
> "*What's Wrong with Bushes?*
> 63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.
> 
> For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].
> 
> We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."
> 
> Bushes in the Tree of Life
Click to expand...


Is this purposely incoherent and rambly?  What is your point?  Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys.  Fine!  Ok so we came from different bushes.  That must make you feel special right?  Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here.  Scientifically explain it to us.  Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you.  We want to know how you think humans got here.


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer


I'm trying to get it out of him.  In his own words.


----------



## harmonica

sealybobo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to get it out of him.  In his own words.
Click to expand...

they are afraid


----------



## sealybobo

harmonica said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to get it out of him.  In his own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are afraid
Click to expand...


It really will kill/end the discussion once we find out they believe god poofed land animals into existence.  

There is no other explanation besides evolution for how humans and all other land animals got here.  Without evolution, which came first the chicken or the egg?  Or in our case, which came first mom and dad or the baby?  

I want James Bond to answer that question.  Which came first, the human baby or the parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire, shortbus rider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....
> 
> You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always fascinating to hear from the Donkey fucking Christianists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I've never been to Tijuana, yet your passport says you've been there 7x, sup?
> 
> PS: You put forth bullshit.
Click to expand...


Well you certainly are an expert on bullshit.

But you donkey fucking evolution deniers always are.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tree of life is not a metaphor.  More stuff you got in your head from Chimp U.  It's phylogeny and an hypothesis about relationships among organisms.
> 
> No.  Bush of life is phylogeny, too, but different than the ToL hypothesis.  It's relatively new.
> 
> The Tree of Life may be more like a bush
Click to expand...


LOL- you don't think that there is an actual 'tree of life' do you? Or an actual 'bush of life'? 

Phylogeny is about the evolutionary development of species and organisms. 

As I said:

The *tree of life* or *universal tree of life* is a metaphor, model and research tool used to explore the evolution of life and describe the relationships between organisms, both living and extinct, as described in a famous passage in Charles Darwin's _On the Origin of Species_ (1859).[2]


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> [
> As for Lucy and the rest, It may be a drawing, but it does show the FRAUD OF EVOS which you have ignored and cannot debunk.



No- frankly your cartoon just shows the FRAUD of you Christianists. 

There is nothing to debunk- your cartoon is a fraud. 

I gave you the citation to the Smithsonian where real scientists have real information about human evolution.

Want more from actual scientists?
Human Odyssey FAQs


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Marion Morrison, post:
> 
> Before I forget, here's the Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy argument for apes evolved from humans on the Kent State U official website.  Read it and weep sucker.
> 
> Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course that is another Christianist fraud.
> 
> 
> Because of course Prof Lovejoy doesn't say that apes evolved from humans
> 
> "People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, *apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us,"* Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. *From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."
> 
> But then again- we are used to Christianist's lying about Evolution. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Except of course that is another Christianist fraud.


Because of course Prof Lovejoy doesn't say that apes evolved from humans

"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, *apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us,"* Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. *From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

But then again- we are used to Christianist's lying about Evolution.*


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.



Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe your evo website is bs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS.  Chronological layers is BS.  Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years.  Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life.  We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads.  As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree.  We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species.  We are related via human species.  Three separate bushes.
> 
> ETA:  Holy guacamole.  It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.
> 
> "Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.
> 
> “… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”
> 
> 1]"
> 
> ...
> 
> "*What's Wrong with Bushes?*
> 63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.
> 
> For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].
> 
> We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."
> 
> Bushes in the Tree of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this purposely incoherent and rambly?  What is your point?  Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys.  Fine!  Ok so we came from different bushes.  That must make you feel special right?  Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here.  Scientifically explain it to us.  Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you.  We want to know how you think humans got here.
Click to expand...


The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong.  The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life.  What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related.  We didn't come from fish nor apes.  However, we'll have to wait for their findings.  I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.

What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings.  They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else.  It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work.  The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.

I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve.  That's creation science and my views haven't changed.  It's actually deepened my faith .  The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.


----------



## Syriusly

So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
Click to expand...


Evolution Resources from the National Academies

*Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?*
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. *Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
*


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe your evo website is bs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS.  Chronological layers is BS.  Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years.  Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life.  We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads.  As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree.  We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species.  We are related via human species.  Three separate bushes.
> 
> ETA:  Holy guacamole.  It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.
> 
> "Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.
> 
> “… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”
> 
> 1]"
> 
> ...
> 
> "*What's Wrong with Bushes?*
> 63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.
> 
> For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].
> 
> We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."
> 
> Bushes in the Tree of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this purposely incoherent and rambly?  What is your point?  Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys.  Fine!  Ok so we came from different bushes.  That must make you feel special right?  Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here.  Scientifically explain it to us.  Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you.  We want to know how you think humans got here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong.  The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life.  What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related.  We didn't come from fish nor apes.  However, we'll have to wait for their findings.  I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.
> 
> What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings.  They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else.  It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work.  The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.
> 
> I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve.  That's creation science and my views haven't changed.  It's actually deepened my faith .  The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> Listen to this guy.  He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution.  Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.
> 
> From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington



Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution. 

_In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."_


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> As for Lucy and the rest, It may be a drawing, but it does show the FRAUD OF EVOS which you have ignored and cannot debunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- frankly your cartoon just shows the FRAUD of you Christianists.
> 
> There is nothing to debunk- your cartoon is a fraud.
> 
> I gave you the citation to the Smithsonian where real scientists have real information about human evolution.
> 
> Want more from actual scientists?
> Human Odyssey FAQs
Click to expand...


I've been there many times and used to have a pass.  That's just theory and the scientists could be wrong.  If they were right, then the genome research would back it up with TOL but that's not what is happening.  It also backs up what I've been saying about science being a cold mother.  A scientist could pick something like string theory and research it for twenty years and have nothing to show for it.  What about Donald Johanson who found Lucy?  He's SOL.  If they were right like Einstein (he wrote his papers at 26), then they become even more famous and admired.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
Click to expand...


We'll never find out how old the earth is.  I think it's relatively young.
It should be around the same age.
No.
I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> We'll never find out how old the earth is. I


Wrong again...we already know eaxactly how old the Earth is. Damn dude, children are taught this in 5th grade. You really should not ever open your mouth about any scientific topic ever again.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
Click to expand...


Well lets see what your evo site actually says- it says that Evolutionary Trees are 
a) visual representations of a pattern of evolution and
b) they are hypothesis's based upon evidence

What is an evolutionary tree?

Evolutionary trees, also known as phylogenetic trees, are visual representations of this branching pattern of evolution.1 A phylogenetic tree may represent the full diversity of life springing from our universal common ancestor (as does the tree above) or a single branch of the full tree of life, such as the vertebrate, fungus, or beetle lineages.

Trees are hypotheses

If you had read about the evolutionary history of whales in the 1970s or 80s, you might have seen a tree that looks something like that shown below left, which implies that whales are closely related to an extinct group of mammals called the mesonychids. Today, we know that the origin of whales is better represented by the tree on the right. Whales and water-loving hippos are closely related! Why the change? Because the discovery of new DNA evidence caused paleontologists to re-evaluate their interpretations of the fossil evidence, leading to a revision of our understanding of the evolutionary relationships in this group.

This example highlights a basic characteristic of evolutionary trees: *they are hypotheses that have been tested with evidence.* Because they are supported by so many lines of evidence, widely accepted phylogenetic trees are unlikely to have their branches rearranged (though new branches are likely to be added as species are discovered). However, a change in our understanding is always possible. If new evidence is discovered or old evidence is reinterpreted, we must adjust our views of evolutionary relationships to reflect those data. Ignoring evidence would be bad science!


----------



## Marion Morrison

Syriusly said:


> So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?



Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence


And yet another moronic statement. For one, scientists don't think cells were poofed into existence; only religious nutballs like you give any credit to such an idea. Second, evolution does not address the topic of abiogenesis. So, being the rabid little religious nutball you are, you don't even understand that creationism and evolution have no conflict.

Your conflict only arises because you subscribe to the ridiculous creationism described in your book of bronze age fairy tales.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of time?  What year is that?
> 
> P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  P.S.  We are all related.  Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<
> 
> Atheists are wrong again.  First, those drawings are just for very early stages.  They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.
> 
> Second, aren't those bushes of life?  We got one for human.  Another for bird.  Another for reptile.  Another for amphibian.  Another for fish.  It doesn't means they are related.  Where do you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.
> 
> "Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
Click to expand...


Where in your 'evo website' does it say that the concept of having 'common ancestor' is a hypothesis?

Quoting your site:
_
All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?
Click to expand...

It is, dumbass:  What's At The Bottom Of The Deepest Hole On Earth?


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?
Click to expand...


Why do you think that the earth should be? 

Is that based upon a fairy in the sky poofing earth into existence 6,000 years ago or life being millions of years old?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll never find out how old the earth is.  I think it's relatively young..
Click to expand...


Based upon what? 

A book written a couple thousand years ago? 
Or on science?
Or on your gut feeling?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It should be around the same age..
Click to expand...


Again based upon what?

If you are a believer in the Bible being literally true- then the Bible says plant life existed a day before the sun. 

If you don't believe in the Bible being literally true- then what are you basing this idea that plant life and the sun should be around the same age?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Syriusly said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the earth should be?
> 
> Is that based upon a fairy in the sky poofing earth into existence 6,000 years ago or life being millions of years old?
Click to expand...


Life being millions of years old. Bones don't decay that fast.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis.  It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe your evo website is bs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS.  Chronological layers is BS.  Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years.  Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life.  We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads.  As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree.  We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species.  We are related via human species.  Three separate bushes.
> 
> ETA:  Holy guacamole.  It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.
> 
> "Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.
> 
> “… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”
> 
> 1]"
> 
> ...
> 
> "*What's Wrong with Bushes?*
> 63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.
> 
> For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].
> 
> We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."
> 
> Bushes in the Tree of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this purposely incoherent and rambly?  What is your point?  Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys.  Fine!  Ok so we came from different bushes.  That must make you feel special right?  Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here.  Scientifically explain it to us.  Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you.  We want to know how you think humans got here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong.  The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life.  What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related.  We didn't come from fish nor apes.  However, we'll have to wait for their findings.  I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.
> 
> What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings.  They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else.  It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work.  The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.
> 
> I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve.  That's creation science and my views haven't changed.  It's actually deepened my faith .  The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to this guy.  He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution.  Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.
> 
> From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution.
> 
> _In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."_
Click to expand...


You just don't understand how scientific theories work.  In Darwin's time, Lemarck and Cuvier ruled and their theories influenced him.  He used Lemarckism of the environment leading to change to explain natural selection.  However, he had different ideas than Lemarck of how it worked.  Fast forward to today and these biotech scientists use molecules, DNA, RNA examples as different ideas of how it worked.  I'm pretty sure these sensors he's referring to scan a wider field of vision than our sight can pick up.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.
Click to expand...


Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution. 

But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> He used Lemarckism of the environment leading to change to explain natural selection


Another shameless lie. This is 100%, ass-backwards false. Darwinism was a direct refutation of LaMarkism and of Cuvier. Damn dude...you really need to stop talking now.


----------



## Syriusly

Marion Morrison said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that the earth should be?
> 
> Is that based upon a fairy in the sky poofing earth into existence 6,000 years ago or life being millions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life being millions of years old. Bones don't decay that fast.
Click to expand...


Actually bones decay pretty fast- on a geological scale. 

The fact is that conditions for preserving actual fossils is pretty rare. Bones generally will just decay away given enough time and left in natural conditions. 

Fossilization requires cells to be in exactly the right situation to be replaced by minerals and to leave an imprint of what the cells looked like. Fossils are not bones- they are images of what the bones looked like- with all of the animal cells replaced by minerals. 

Now lets look at the opposite side of the equation- how can there be so many fossils if the world is only 6,000 years old? 

How do we have fossils of sea life in Wyoming? How are we finding fossils hundreds of feet below the surface- if the world is only 6,000 years old?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe your evo website is bs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS.  Chronological layers is BS.  Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years.  Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life.  We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads.  As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree.  We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species.  We are related via human species.  Three separate bushes.
> 
> ETA:  Holy guacamole.  It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.
> 
> "Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.
> 
> “… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”
> 
> 1]"
> 
> ...
> 
> "*What's Wrong with Bushes?*
> 63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.
> 
> For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].
> 
> We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."
> 
> Bushes in the Tree of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this purposely incoherent and rambly?  What is your point?  Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys.  Fine!  Ok so we came from different bushes.  That must make you feel special right?  Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here.  Scientifically explain it to us.  Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you.  We want to know how you think humans got here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong.  The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life.  What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related.  We didn't come from fish nor apes.  However, we'll have to wait for their findings.  I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.
> 
> What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings.  They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else.  It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work.  The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.
> 
> I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve.  That's creation science and my views haven't changed.  It's actually deepened my faith .  The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to this guy.  He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution.  Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.
> 
> From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution.
> 
> _In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't understand how scientific theories work.  In Darwin's time, Lemarck and Cuvier ruled and their theories influenced him.  He used Lemarckism of the environment leading to change to explain natural selection.  However, he had different ideas than Lemarck of how it worked.  Fast forward to today and these biotech scientists use molecules, DNA, RNA examples as different ideas of how it worked.  I'm pretty sure these sensors he's referring to scan a wider field of vision than our sight can pick up.
Click to expand...


It says right in the article that he studies evolution. 
_
Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution.

In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."
_
Andy Ellington is a scientist- and is studying aspects of evolution

Evolutionary origins and directed evolution of RNA.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.
> 
> But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
Click to expand...


What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence.  For example, there is no way to create protein outside the cell which I've stated many times.  What we find at the molecular level is evidence of design.

For example cytochrome C.  Evos in molecular biology thought it would show evidence of evolution because cytochrome C is a protein found in practically in every living organism including bacteria.  Humans and bacteria have cytochrome C, but it's a little different in each.  So, let me ask you this.  Do you think due to evolution that we should see a natural progression of this protein's changes from bacteria to humans?  Let me see how much you believe in evolution.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.
> 
> But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence..
Click to expand...


So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.

It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.

Can you stand up and say what you believe?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.
> 
> But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
Click to expand...


I already answered it.  What did I compare?  I believe in creation science over ToE because it provides the most evidence that is consistent with respect to origins.  ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?


----------



## james bond

Are you scientifcally literate?  Take this quiz and find out.  

Are you scientifically literate? Take our quiz


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Girl finds 65 million year old fossil in Oregon field


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.
> 
> But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered it.  What did I compare?  I believe in creation science over ToE because it provides the most evidence that is consistent with respect to origins.
Click to expand...


Okay so you believe in 'Creation Science'- whatever that is. 

What is Creation Science's theory that explains the diversity of life on earth?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:
> 
> Some simple questions Bond:
> a) How old do you think that the earth is?
> b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
> c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
> d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.
> 
> But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
Click to expand...


LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?

First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.

Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science. 

So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.

Facts that support your theory.

Go.


----------



## LittleNipper

harmonica said:


> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer


Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Girl finds 65 million year old fossil in Oregon field


And what is funny is that the evolutionists all say it should have been found 80 miles away and that the item is "scientifically" worthless because no one really knows how it got there... Actually, what they are saying is that it shouldn't have been found where the girl said she found it and someone must have tossed it there!  So much for evolution and their "unbiased" scientific rationalizations.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter.  Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.
> 
> But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
Click to expand...

The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.


----------



## harmonica

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
Click to expand...

thank you


----------



## harmonica

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
Click to expand...

but is that all the detail you can give?? 
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And what is funny is that the evolutionists all say it should have been found 80 miles away and that the item is "scientifically" worthless because no one really knows how it got there..


What is funny about that? She didn't extract it from 65 million year old rock. You're not making any sense.

And the guys that insists a magical sky wizard made everything g 6000 years ago is not allowed to make fun of the idea that a rock can be moved by humans or environmental factors. Clearly one makes more sense than the other.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.
> 
> But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
Click to expand...


Okay- explain how. 

If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.

When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?

Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?

Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe. 

The fairy tales of the Bible don't.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Girl finds 65 million year old fossil in Oregon field
> 
> 
> 
> And what is funny is that the evolutionists all say it should have been found 80 miles away and that the item is "scientifically" worthless because no one really knows how it got there... Actually, what they are saying is that it shouldn't have been found where the girl said she found it and someone must have tossed it there!  So much for evolution and their "unbiased" scientific rationalizations.
Click to expand...


The girl finding the fossil has no scientific importance- but she sure enjoyed finding it. 

There are various places in Oregon where fossils are known to be found-  I have gone there and found some myself- where they were predicted to be.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point?  You're not going to believe what I say anyway even if I provided the evidence..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
Click to expand...


First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Girl finds 65 million year old fossil in Oregon field
> 
> 
> 
> And what is funny is that the evolutionists all say it should have been found 80 miles away and that the item is "scientifically" worthless because no one really knows how it got there... Actually, what they are saying is that it shouldn't have been found where the girl said she found it and someone must have tossed it there!  So much for evolution and their "unbiased" scientific rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The girl finding the fossil has no scientific importance- but she sure enjoyed finding it.
> 
> There are various places in Oregon where fossils are known to be found-  I have gone there and found some myself- where they were predicted to be.
Click to expand...


I enjoyed the story, too.  Got nothing against fossils or digging.  It's a bit like fishing and knowing where to find it.  I'm itching to pan for gold since it signifies a divinie atom.  No one will be able to create gold; They can with synthetic diamonds which are molecules.  Others are mining blockchain of bitcoin.  That's molecular, too.  More evidence for God in my book.


----------



## Asclepias

God or some other engineer created life and told evolution to work its magic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.


Two reasons this is stupid:

1) it doesn't explain how all the water got to earth, as "the deep",.....is still earth. Duh.

2) this idea violates every law of physics


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> 
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
Click to expand...


Wow- that is quite the word salad there.

Where in the Bible does it say that Mount Everest was formed after the Flood? It doesn't. The Bible says that the flood covered even the mountains by 15 cubits- nothing about the Flood forming new mountains. 

Where did the water go after the flood? 

Where in the Bible is anything about 'outer space disturbance' affecting our life span mentioned?


11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.g]">[g]h]">[h] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

8 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> 
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?
Click to expand...


Evolution doesn't explain water- or why the earth has water.

For that you would look to a different science.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't even willing to stand up and say what you actually believe.
> 
> It isn't all that difficult- for example I believe that evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Can you stand up and say what you believe?
> 
> 
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
Click to expand...


You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?

P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
Click to expand...


He did- he is a 'chicken's came before eggs' kind of guy.

Or in this case 'a fairy popped chicken's into existence' kind of guy.


----------



## james bond

Not word salad, but I noticed you avoided my question of where the water on earth came from.  Thus, you nor atheists scientists have an explanation.

"The word for “flood” (_mabbul_), used here for the first time, applies only to the Noahic Flood; other floods are denoted by various other words in the original. This was the “mabbul,” unique in all history...Similarly, when the Genesis Flood is referred to in the New Testament, the Greek term _kataklusmos_ is uniquely employed (Matthew 24:39 ; Luke 17:27 ; 2 Peter 2:5 ; 2 Peter 3:6 ) instead of the usual Greek word for “flood.” This Flood was not to be comparable to other later local floods; it was to be absolutely unique in all history.[1]

1.  Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 1976. p.183-184."

Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover.  I don't think there was that much water to cover it.  However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher.  Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive.  However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.

"and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground wthat the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”"  Genesis 5:29

As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve.  My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere.  It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.

Decreased lifespans: Have we been looking in the right place? - creation.com

Catastrophism
Catastrophism | geology

Earth sciences - William Smith and faunal succession

When Continents Collide

Canyon carved in just three days in Texas flood: Insight into ancient flood events on Earth and Mars


How old is Grand Canyon - creation.com


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ToE as change over time of species is not observable or else I could get the data and graph for myself.  Yet, I just found I could get current evolution of new species of finches on Gallepagos Island and see the changes since evolution is rapid.  Can you understand in your own words what I just said and proposed?  Are you ready to put your belief in ToE to cytochrome C and new species of finches on Gallepagos Island which Darwin observed back in the day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
Click to expand...


Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?

Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Not word salad, but I noticed you avoided my question of where the water on earth came from.  Thus, you nor atheists scientists have an explanation.



I actually specifically answered- how water came to be on earth is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution. 

It is relevant to your 'Creationist Theory'- which is just the Old Testament dressed up in white smock.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover.  I don't think there was that much water to cover it.  However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher.  Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive.  However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.



Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing. 

But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.

Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years? 

Or any significant plate tectonics movement? 

There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.

Nothing. 

But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> enesis 5:29
> 
> As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve.  My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere.  It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.



So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science. 

Why did you mention it?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Not word salad, but I noticed you avoided my question of where the water on earth came from.



Speaking of avoiding the question- here is what you avoided answering:

Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?

Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.

The fairy tales of the Bible don't.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> He did- he is a 'chicken's came before eggs' kind of guy.
> 
> Or in this case 'a fairy popped chicken's into existence' kind of guy.



All right smart arse, explain how the chicken egg evolve when it's so complex?  Science backed up the Bible when it demonstrated the chicken came first so that it's a fact now.







Nice design there!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> where the water on earth came from. Thus, you nor atheists scientists have an explanation.


Here is some goofy religious nutballs unlogic on display.

And scientists already know where the water came from, weirdo.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly Old slow school evolution dies hard.






The pace of evolution


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Syriusly Old slow school evolution dies hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pace of evolution


You could not summarize the arguments in that link if your life depended on it.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not word salad, but I noticed you avoided my question of where the water on earth came from.  Thus, you nor atheists scientists have an explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually specifically answered- how water came to be on earth is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> It is relevant to your 'Creationist Theory'- which is just the Old Testament dressed up in white smock.
Click to expand...


More lies.  You also didn't answer what's happening on Titan.  How did it get its surface water?  Or oceans of water deep down Europa?  What about Mars in the past?  Can one nuke the frozen ice and get running water?

Let me lock you in a room with no water and see how long you'd last?  No evolution.  The amount of water needed for survival and colonization is great.  One needs photosynthesis, too.  Another of fine tuning facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> More lies. You also didn't answer what's happening on Titan. How did it get its surface water? Or oceans of water deep down Europa? What about Mars in the past? Can one nuke



None of these things are mysteries...damn you are bizarre...


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover.  I don't think there was that much water to cover it.  However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher.  Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive.  However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.
> 
> But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.
> 
> Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?
> 
> Or any significant plate tectonics movement?
> 
> There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.
Click to expand...


You and atheists are wrong again.  This is too easy.

The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift.  "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9

Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist.  Not an atheist one.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> enesis 5:29
> 
> As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve.  My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere.  It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science.
> 
> Why did you mention it?
Click to expand...


Scientific hypothesis as I stated.  The water canopy is in the Bible.

I see no explanation for the egg, so will assume atheists are wrong again.  The chicken came first is a fact.  Why don't atheist scientists try to create a chicken ha ha?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift. "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9


That's idiotic...at no point in that verse is "only one large land mass" mentioned.


----------



## deanrd

If there were a magical flood, then all the bones would be mixed together.

Instead, what has been found at the Grand Canyon is the lower you go, the simpler the life forms.  At the very bottom are most simple of all.


----------



## LittleNipper

harmonica said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
Click to expand...

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## deanrd

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle.
Click to expand...

Who recorded it?  Fox news?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did- he is a 'chicken's came before eggs' kind of guy.
> 
> Or in this case 'a fairy popped chicken's into existence' kind of guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All right smart arse, explain how the chicken egg evolve when it's so complex?  Science backed up the Bible when it demonstrated the chicken came first so that it's a fact now.!
Click to expand...


The 'chicken egg' didn't evolve. Whole organisms evolve.

Never have understood that whole Christianist myth that something too complex for them to understand means that a fairy must have poofed it into existence. 

Science doesn't back up either of your claims and the only fact here is that you believe in the Bible- not science.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not word salad, but I noticed you avoided my question of where the water on earth came from.  Thus, you nor atheists scientists have an explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually specifically answered- how water came to be on earth is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> It is relevant to your 'Creationist Theory'- which is just the Old Testament dressed up in white smock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More lies.  You also didn't answer what's happening on Titan.  .
Click to expand...


Well feel free to prove anything I said was a lie- if you can't well that would be bearing false witness and would mean you are going to hell (lol).

I didn't answer about Titan because
a) It isn't relevant to evolution or the thread and
b) I don't know- while I am not completely ignorant about Titan i don't claim to know much about it and am not going to get into any irrelevant discussion just so you can change the subject.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover.  I don't think there was that much water to cover it.  However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher.  Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive.  However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.
> 
> But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.
> 
> Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?
> 
> Or any significant plate tectonics movement?
> 
> There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and atheists are wrong again.  This is too easy.
> 
> The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift.  "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9
> 
> Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist.  Not an atheist one.
Click to expand...


LOL 

The Bible doesn't mention Pangea. 

Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places? 

But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year? 

Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.

And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?

And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?

Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> enesis 5:29
> 
> As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve.  My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere.  It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science.
> 
> Why did you mention it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  The chicken came first is a fact.  Why don't atheist scientists try to create a chicken ha ha?
Click to expand...


Funny you should mention that. 

Did you know that they are trying to resurrect species? Mamooths and Carrier Pigeons?

Mamooths are probably going to be easier- because birds lay eggs and that is a challenge.

But if they do manage to recreate Carrier Pigeons- the egg will have to come first.


----------



## harmonica

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!


----------



## Asclepias

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Never heard of Cana. Where is that at?  Also it wasnt dust. It was humus (human?).  A kind of natural fertilizer.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> enesis 5:29
> 
> As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve.  My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere.  It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science.
> 
> Why did you mention it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  The chicken came first is a fact.  Why don't atheist scientists try to create a chicken ha ha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that.
> 
> Did you know that they are trying to resurrect species? Mamooths and Carrier Pigeons?
> 
> Mamooths are probably going to be easier- because birds lay eggs and that is a challenge.
> 
> But if they do manage to recreate Carrier Pigeons- the egg will have to come first.
Click to expand...


How is that going to work?  Where is the evolution?

In my case, God created the chicken first showing evidence of God.  Only life begats life.

In your case of bringing back mammoths and carrier pigeons, what does it have to do with evolution?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> enesis 5:29
> 
> As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve.  My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere.  It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science.
> 
> Why did you mention it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  The chicken came first is a fact.  Why don't atheist scientists try to create a chicken ha ha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that.
> 
> Did you know that they are trying to resurrect species? Mamooths and Carrier Pigeons?
> 
> Mamooths are probably going to be easier- because birds lay eggs and that is a challenge.
> 
> But if they do manage to recreate Carrier Pigeons- the egg will have to come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that going to work?  Where is the evolution?
> 
> In my case, God created the chicken first showing evidence of God.  Only life begats life.
> 
> In your case of bringing back mammoths and carrier pigeons, what does it have to do with evolution?
Click to expand...


LOL- after all of the crap you have brought up that have nothing to do with evolution- that is pretty funny.

Whether the chicken or the egg came first has nothing to do with evolution

I was just pointing out your logical fallacy- that the chicken has to come first- by pointing out that if new carrier pigeons are created- the egg will come first.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover.  I don't think there was that much water to cover it.  However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher.  Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive.  However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.
> 
> But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.
> 
> Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?
> 
> Or any significant plate tectonics movement?
> 
> There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and atheists are wrong again.  This is too easy.
> 
> The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift.  "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9
> 
> Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist.  Not an atheist one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The Bible doesn't mention Pangea.
> 
> Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
> “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
> Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places?
> 
> But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year?
> 
> Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.
> 
> And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?
> 
> And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?
> 
> Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?
Click to expand...


Sure it does.  I just quoted it.  Most atheist scientists ignored Pangaea as one supercontinent until plate tectonics was discovered and it was shown to be true.  It shows that the earth was formed by catastrophism and not atheist ideas of uniformitarianism.







"*Evidence of existence*




The distribution of fossils across the continents is one line of evidence pointing to the existence of Pangaea.
Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid _Lystrosaurus_ have been found in South Africa, India and Antarctica, alongside members of the _Glossopteris_ flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile _Mesosaurus_ has been found in only localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[19]

Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents that would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[20]

Paleomagnetic study of apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a supercontinent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Since the magnetic poles drift about the rotational pole with a period of only a few thousand years, measurements from numerous lavas spanning several thousand years are averaged to give an apparent mean polar position. Samples of sedimentary rock and intrusive igneous rock have magnetic orientations that are typically an average of the "secular variation" in the orientation of magnetic north because their remanent magnetizations are not acquired instantaneously. Magnetic differences between sample groups whose age varies by millions of years is due to a combination of true polar wander and the drifting of continents. The true polar wander component is identical for all samples, and can be removed, leaving geologists with the portion of this motion that shows continental drift and can be used to help reconstruct earlier continental positions.[21]

The continuity of mountain chains provides further evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain, which extends from the southeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[22]"

Pangaea - Wikipedia

As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain?  How does it show evolution over creation science?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover.  I don't think there was that much water to cover it.  However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher.  Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive.  However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.
> 
> But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.
> 
> Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?
> 
> Or any significant plate tectonics movement?
> 
> There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and atheists are wrong again.  This is too easy.
> 
> The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift.  "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9
> 
> Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist.  Not an atheist one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The Bible doesn't mention Pangea.
> 
> Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
> “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
> Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places?
> 
> But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year?
> 
> Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.
> 
> And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?
> 
> And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?
> 
> Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  I just quoted it.  Most atheist scientists ignored Pangaea as one supercontinent until plate tectonics was discovered and it was shown to be true.  It shows that the earth was formed by catastrophism and not atheist ideas of uniformitarianism.
Click to expand...


LOL funny that. Since Christian scientists 'ignored' Pangaea until plate tectonics were 'proven' to be true. 

Of course what plate tectonics actually proved was that over the course of millions of years that the continents flowed.

Not over the course of a few thousand years. 

And again- no- it doesn't show that the earth was formed by 'castatrophism'. That is of course just Christianist faux-science. 

Today most geologists combine catastrophist and uniformitarianist standpoints, taking the view that Earth's history is a slow, gradual story punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants

Or as a critic pointed out

_Of course, creationists have an answer for this, including "catastrophic plate tectonics", which apparently can have all the continents scurrying across the face of the Earth like cockroaches avoiding light. Go ahead and read that link; it’s pretty entertaining. According to them, the continents all got pushed around by Noah’s flood, then suddenly stopped, except not really stopped; now they move slowly, and at just the right speed to be in concordance with the hundreds of other pieces of evidence that show that the Earth is billions of years old.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/21/creationists-fail-again-taken-for-granite/_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover.  I don't think there was that much water to cover it.  However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher.  Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive.  However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.
> 
> But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.
> 
> Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?
> 
> Or any significant plate tectonics movement?
> 
> There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and atheists are wrong again.  This is too easy.
> 
> The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift.  "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9
> 
> Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist.  Not an atheist one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The Bible doesn't mention Pangea.
> 
> Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
> “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
> Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places?
> 
> But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year?
> 
> Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.
> 
> And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?
> 
> And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?
> 
> Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  I just quoted it.  Most atheist scientists ignored Pangaea as one supercontinent until plate tectonics was discovered and it was shown to be true.  It shows that the earth was formed by catastrophism and not atheist ideas of uniformitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Evidence of existence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distribution of fossils across the continents is one line of evidence pointing to the existence of Pangaea.
> Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid _Lystrosaurus_ have been found in South Africa, India and Antarctica, alongside members of the _Glossopteris_ flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile _Mesosaurus_ has been found in only localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[19]
> 
> Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents that would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[20]
> 
> Paleomagnetic study of apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a supercontinent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Since the magnetic poles drift about the rotational pole with a period of only a few thousand years, measurements from numerous lavas spanning several thousand years are averaged to give an apparent mean polar position. Samples of sedimentary rock and intrusive igneous rock have magnetic orientations that are typically an average of the "secular variation" in the orientation of magnetic north because their remanent magnetizations are not acquired instantaneously. Magnetic differences between sample groups whose age varies by millions of years is due to a combination of true polar wander and the drifting of continents. The true polar wander component is identical for all samples, and can be removed, leaving geologists with the portion of this motion that shows continental drift and can be used to help reconstruct earlier continental positions.[21]
> 
> The continuity of mountain chains provides further evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain, which extends from the southeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[22]"
> 
> Pangaea - Wikipedia
> 
> As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain?  How does it show evolution over creation science?
Click to expand...

And the same scientists who taught you anything you will ever know about any of that also overwhelmingly agree that evolution is fact.

So you can stop citing scientists now, nutball.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain?  How does it show evolution over creation science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
Click to expand...


No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain?  How does it show evolution over creation science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
Click to expand...


Oh, this has to do with flood theories instead of you not being able to read the wikipedia article?

It seems what you are asking is how did the animals get from Noah's Ark which landed in the Mt. Ararat area to far reaching places like Australia and India?  Doesn't the supercontinent or one land mass explain it in the article I posted?  Did you read the wikipedia article and see the map I posted?  What does evolution say about Pangaea and animal migration?  The reason why I ask is this is stuff you should know because it falls under biogeography.  The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already.  In fact, it was biogeography which led him to come up with his supercontinent hypothesis which was immediately ignored. Just like today with creation scientists who attribute the earth's geology to catastrophism.  They even have Mt. St. Helens which shows the same stratification of earth layers when its volcano erupted.  That's hard evidence of layers not being related to chronology, but rapid change.  Yet, it's creation science so it's ignored until atheist scientists borrow, i.e. steal, their ideas to back up their dumbass hypothesis of how the dinosaurs went extinct.






Heh.  Wegener found that the distributions of fossils of several organisms supported his theory that the continents were once joined together.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this has to do with flood theories instead of you not being able to read the wikipedia article?
> 
> It seems what you are asking is how did the animals get from Noah's Ark which landed in the Mt. Ararat area to far reaching places like Australia and India?  Doesn't the supercontinent or one land mass explain it in the article I posted?  Did you read the wikipedia article and see the map I posted?  What does evolution say about Pangaea and animal migration? .
Click to expand...


No. 

See here is the thing. 

IF all the animals were created at once- and all released at Mt. Ararat at once- then they would have all dispersed somewhat evenly. 

Even if anyone were to believe the Christianist theories that the continents were speeding apart at over a mile a year- that doesn't explain why Kangaroos ended up in Australia and Elephants didn't.

According to the Christianist fairy tales- every animal species alive 5,000 years ago came off of the ark and then started wandering around.

How did Galapagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos? But nowhere else?

Evolution explains why. 

How did Kangaroos end up in Australia but nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.

How did Rheas end up in South America but nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already.  .
Click to expand...


You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:
_
By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands),_ and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.

So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.

Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this has to do with flood theories instead of you not being able to read the wikipedia article?
> 
> It seems what you are asking is how did the animals get from Noah's Ark which landed in the Mt. Ararat area to far reaching places like Australia and India?  Doesn't the supercontinent or one land mass explain it in the article I posted?  Did you read the wikipedia article and see the map I posted?  What does evolution say about Pangaea and animal migration? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> See here is the thing.
> 
> IF all the animals were created at once- and all released at Mt. Ararat at once- then they would have all dispersed somewhat evenly.
> 
> Even if anyone were to believe the Christianist theories that the continents were speeding apart at over a mile a year- that doesn't explain why Kangaroos ended up in Australia and Elephants didn't.
> 
> According to the Christianist fairy tales- every animal species alive 5,000 years ago came off of the ark and then started wandering around.
> 
> How did Galapagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos? But nowhere else?
> 
> Evolution explains why.
> 
> How did Kangaroos end up in Australia but nowhere else?
> 
> Evolution explains why.
> 
> How did Rheas end up in South America but nowhere else?
> 
> Evolution explains why.
Click to expand...


First and foremost, I want to point out that Wegener used fossils to explain where animals were found.  Fossils just means where the animal died.  He didn't attribute any time chronology of millions of years to it, so he wasn't looking for how old they were.  This helped him come up with the hypothesis of a supercontinent circa 1915.  Does it occur to you why his hypothesis was ignored?  Because it didn't fit dumbass Darwin's evolution ideas.  It wasn't until 1960 when plate tectonics and scientists mapped the ocean floor that they were able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible.  Remember the article of the Oregon girl's finding.  What was the first thing the people attributed to it?  Millions of years which is wrong.  So take your Darwin's evo ideas and shove it up where the sun don't shine.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:
> _
> By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands),_ and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.
> 
> So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.
> 
> Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?
Click to expand...


This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources?  He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> why don't you post links to your sources?


Because he is posting well established scientific knowledge that will be the same no matter what source used. Duh.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:
> _
> By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands),_ and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.
> 
> So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.
> 
> Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources?  He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.
Click to expand...


Small potatoes?

You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.

He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.

Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?

Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.

Here- I did your homework for you

Wegener, Alfred


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:
> _
> By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands),_ and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.
> 
> So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.
> 
> Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources?  He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Small potatoes?
> 
> You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.
> 
> He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.
> 
> Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?
> 
> Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.
> 
> Here- I did your homework for you
> 
> Wegener, Alfred
Click to expand...


You should have linked your sources when you posted.  My question to you is *how did Wegener get 300 millions years?*

Your link has:
"By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions."

Give me your answer.  Your answer should help explain the age difference.

I didn't ignore HIS science, but Lyell's and Darwin's long ages.  Have you not been listening to catastrophism of things happening very fast for the earth's geology?  Have you not been listening to fossils represents where animals died?  That's the creation science and it has been systematically ignored by Darwin's and Lyell's long ages.
 .






There's really no relationship between the two timelines, so creation scientists can't explain the difference.  The only way I see is to use what evos use to get their timeline.


----------



## james bond

I found a creationist museum that found plumbing fixtures from 300 million years ago .

Press Release: Manmade Artifacts in “300 Million Year Old” Strata!

Here's a real large ammonite for sale.






14" x 18"






They even explain how to mold old fossils.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I found a creationist museum that found plumbing fixtures from 300 million years ago .
> 
> Press Release: Manmade Artifacts in “300 Million Year Old” Strata!
> 
> Here's a real large ammonite for sale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14" x 18"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They even explain how to mold old fossils.


Haha, what a bunch of fake bullshit. You believe that nonsense? Hahahahaha....oh man....


----------



## LittleNipper

Asclepias said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never heard of Cana. Where is that at?  Also it wasnt dust. It was humus (human?).  A kind of natural fertilizer.
Click to expand...

Cana is in Israel. Have you ever seen an Egyptian mummy? It's dust.


----------



## LittleNipper

harmonica said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dust into a fully formed, working human
> and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!
Click to expand...

I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.


----------



## harmonica

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
> no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dust into a fully formed, working human
> and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
Click to expand...

ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not? 
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:
> _
> By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands),_ and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.
> 
> So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.
> 
> Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources?  He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Small potatoes?
> 
> You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.
> 
> He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.
> 
> Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?
> 
> Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.
> 
> Here- I did your homework for you
> 
> Wegener, Alfred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have linked your sources when you posted.  My question to you is *how did Wegener get 300 millions years?*
> 
> Your link has:
> "By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions."
> 
> Give me your answer.  Your answer should help explain the age difference..
Click to expand...


LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did. 

You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause. 

So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.

And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.

I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you. 

If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it. 

But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> I found a creationist museum that found plumbing fixtures from 300 million years ago .
> 
> Press Release: Manmade Artifacts in “300 Million Year Old” Strata!
> 
> Here's a real large ammonite for sale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14" x 18"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They even explain how to mold old fossils.



LOL- you know the difference between a Bible museum and a Creationist museum?

The Bible museum is honest.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.
> 
> I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:
> _
> By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands),_ and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.
> 
> So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.
> 
> Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources?  He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Small potatoes?
> 
> You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.
> 
> He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.
> 
> Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?
> 
> Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.
> 
> Here- I did your homework for you
> 
> Wegener, Alfred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have linked your sources when you posted.  My question to you is *how did Wegener get 300 millions years?*
> 
> Your link has:
> "By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions."
> 
> Give me your answer.  Your answer should help explain the age difference.
> 
> I didn't ignore HIS science, but Lyell's and Darwin's long ages.  Have you not been listening to catastrophism of things happening very fast for the earth's geology?  Have you not been listening to fossils represents where animals died?  That's the creation science and it has been systematically ignored by Darwin's and Lyell's long ages.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no relationship between the two timelines, so creation scientists can't explain the difference.  The only way I see is to use what evos use to get their timeline.
Click to expand...


There is no relationship between the Christianist time line- and reality.

Yes- scientists ignore fairy tales posing as science.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.
> 
> You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.
> 
> So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.
> 
> And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.
> 
> I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.
> 
> If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.
> 
> But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.



I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him.  How else is he going to explain when creation got cast to the side of the road after Darwin's ToE ?  The Origin of Species book made Darwin rich.  Lyell's book before that was successful, too; His family was rich already.  Darwin's book was such a monumental breakthrough and I think people believed and accepted it because of racism.  Origin of Species may not have been outwardly racist, but it immediately prompted racist ideas.  Darwin's second book The Descent of Man was racist building upon what happened after his hit book.  In Darwin's time all of these scientists believed the pseudoscience racism and Darwin's ToE explained how blacks in Africa evolved from apes. Racism made Darwin legit and rich.  Later, radiometric dating by Clair Patterson gave the time Darwin's theory craved in 1956.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.
> 
> You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.
> 
> So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.
> 
> And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.
> 
> I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.
> 
> If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.
> 
> But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..
Click to expand...


Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?

Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?

Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.

So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment. 

The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift. 

Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos. 

Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.

LOL


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.
> 
> You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.
> 
> So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.
> 
> And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.
> 
> I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.
> 
> If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.
> 
> But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?
> 
> Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?
> 
> Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.
> 
> So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.
> 
> The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.
> 
> Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.
> 
> Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


I just discovered that you know nothing about how a layer is 300 million years old circa 1915 since you can't answer how Wegener came up with 300 million years.  As I pointed out radiometric dating wasn't around then.

Second, you are an ignoramus to ignore how science influences politics.  The racism led to social Darwinish, colonialism and the new imperialism.  It led to Hitler's rise in power.  This explains why Wegener was using 300 million years.

Instead, you want to change the argument to young earth vs evolution.  We'll get there in due time, but I want to see you squirm in explaining how Wegener came up with 300 million years old strata in 1915.  To make it easier for you, how did anyone come up with a 300 million year old layer and other layers in 1915?  In other words, how did Darwin come up with millions of years layers ?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.
> 
> You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.
> 
> So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.
> 
> And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.
> 
> I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.
> 
> If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.
> 
> But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?
> 
> Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?
> 
> Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.
> 
> So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.
> 
> The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.
> 
> Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.
> 
> Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just discovered that you know nothing about how a layer is 300 million years old circa 1915 since you can't answer how Wegener came up with 300 million years.  As I pointed out radiometric dating wasn't around then.?
Click to expand...


LOL what we keep discovering is that you both claim that Wegener is a 'Creationist Scientist' yet want to ignore his own words when he discusses that continental drift is at least 200 million years in the making.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.
> 
> You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.
> 
> So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.
> 
> And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.
> 
> I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.
> 
> If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.
> 
> But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?
> 
> Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?
> 
> Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.
> 
> So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.
> 
> The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.
> 
> Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.
> 
> Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll get there in due time, but I want to see you squirm in explaining how Wegener came up with 300 million years old strata in 1915.
Click to expand...


I wasn't the person citing Wegener as a 'Creation Scientist'.

I am just quoting him to show your claims about him are debunked.


----------



## Syriusly

Still waiting for the fascinating discussion about how virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- but nowhere else- all after they hopped and crawled all the way from Mt. Ararat to Australia


----------



## LittleNipper

harmonica said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.
> 
> 
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dust into a fully formed, working human
> and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
Click to expand...

It happened in one day --- day 6.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> but is that all the detail you can give??
> so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dust into a fully formed, working human
> and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
Click to expand...

Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> dust into a fully formed, working human
> and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
Click to expand...

What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> dust into a fully formed, working human
> and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!
> 
> 
> 
> I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
Click to expand...

I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread. 

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.








For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?



Spend a few bucks and spit in a tube for 23&Me.  The result will explain how much Neanderthal DNA you have.

[that is not an insult.  I'm serious, many normal human beings you know will have some Neanderthal DNA, and you might have some too].


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> What evidence are you speaking of ---


The entire fossil record, the age of earth, the age of the earliest life, the correct predictions yielded by all of our best scientific theories...


Now, go ahead, do that stupid thing you do wherein you imply the scientists are all liars or incompetent, and sometimes science is wrong, etc etc.  It has no bearing on anything.  you are free to believe as you wish.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I will not try to embarass you


Ok, look, jackass.  The garbage you are peddling runs contradictory to all of the evidence available to us.  You sound like a goddamn crazy person. You deny our most well-established scientific theories using specious argument and bad evidence, and are actually stupid and arrogant enough to think you are posing an _actual _challenge to any of these theories. You are embarrassing exactly nobody, save for yourself.


----------



## Political Junky

Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
> 
> 
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
Click to expand...


I don't see this as evolution at all. I see it as hybridization. I see it as adaptability or even a learning process. I see it as a matter of choice. I exuate it with some humans having big noses and some are hairy --- some eat pork and some eat calf's tongue.  I'm sorry but when a plant pulls itself out by the roots and starts walking around that would be something, but a fly being a fly or a goat a goat explains KINDS and not a new species. Let's be practical. Do you like all foods? Do you like all colors equally? Do you enjoy all music the same? Does this make you more or less human than me?


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will not try to embarass you
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, look, jackass.  The garbage you are peddling runs contradictory to all of the evidence available to us.  You sound like a goddamn crazy person. You deny our most well-established scientific theories using specious argument and bad evidence, and are actually stupid and arrogant enough to think you are posing an _actual _challenge to any of these theories. You are embarrassing exactly nobody, save for yourself.
Click to expand...

And you sound like an ignorant slob, but I keep it to myself.


----------



## LittleNipper

Political Junky said:


> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.


I believe that lighter skinned humans enjoyed a cooler, shadier climate better. And the blondes intermarried and became inbred. They are still human kind.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.
> 
> You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.
> 
> So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.
> 
> And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.
> 
> I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.
> 
> If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.
> 
> But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?
> 
> Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?
> 
> Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.
> 
> So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.
> 
> The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.
> 
> Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.
> 
> Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll get there in due time, but I want to see you squirm in explaining how Wegener came up with 300 million years old strata in 1915.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't the person citing Wegener as a 'Creation Scientist'.
> 
> I am just quoting him to show your claims about him are debunked.
Click to expand...


You're arguing word salad .  I hate it when I have to explain to atheists who think they know science when I know more science than them.  Anyway, I already explained Charles Lyell, uniformitarianism and his book Principles of Geology.  I know this from studying my evo website and then studying creation science.  Lyell hypothesized there were undisturbed layers and disturbed layers of strata.  He assumed Noah's flood never happened and that it was a myth.  Thus, most of the earth was undisturbed and the younger layers were on top while the older layers were on the bottom from observation.  The disturbed layers, such as those from local earthquakes or floods were mixed up, and thus one could not tell.  Lyell and his pupil Darwin didn't know how old the layers were, but thought they were really old.  It was based on the age of the earth.  Prior to that, the scientists believed the age of the earth was 6,000 years old.

After atheist Lyell and Darwin, Lord Kelvin, another creation scientist, estimated the earth to be 20 million to 400 million years old by ASSUMING it to be a completely molten object.  Lyell's book was so completely revolutionary that even creation scientists started thinking, i.e. assuming, that the earth had undisturbed layers.  It started arguments against the age of the earth that was calculated from the Bible by creation scientists at around 6,000 years.  That's what gave the layers the million of years and what Wegener was using.

Wegener's theories eventually led to plate tectonics as we have discussed.  Now, how does plate tectonics relate to another creation scientist from Darwin's time Alfred Russel Wallace?  Wallace and Darwin came up with evolution by natural selection around the same time.  (There was another creation scientist, Edward Blyth, who came up with evo by natural selection before them.)


----------



## james bond

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will not try to embarass you
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, look, jackass.  The garbage you are peddling runs contradictory to all of the evidence available to us.  You sound like a goddamn crazy person. You deny our most well-established scientific theories using specious argument and bad evidence, and are actually stupid and arrogant enough to think you are posing an _actual _challenge to any of these theories. You are embarrassing exactly nobody, save for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you sound like an ignorant slob, but I keep it to myself.
Click to expand...


Racist, too, which I keep to myself.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
> 
> 
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
Click to expand...


Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21.  Furthermore, the article favors rapid epigentic evolution vs slow, gradual Darwin's evolution.  We also found out that you didn't know what you were talking about with chromosomes.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---
> 
> 
> 
> The entire fossil record, the age of earth, the age of the earliest life, the correct predictions yielded by all of our best scientific theories...
> 
> 
> Now, go ahead, do that stupid thing you do wherein you imply the scientists are all liars or incompetent, and sometimes science is wrong, etc etc.  It has no bearing on anything.  you are free to believe as you wish.
Click to expand...


Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact .


----------



## james bond

Political Junky said:


> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.



Which do you think is more likely?  Aramaic people who migrated to Africa and became darker skinned.  Also, Aramaic people migrated to Scandinavia to become lighter skinned.

There is the migration pattern from Pangaea, but also from Gondwanaland that connected to Pangaea.








"Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see this as evolution at all. I see it as hybridization.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't see this as 'evolution'.

Yet the article explains exactly why this is not hybridization. And you ignore it.

Which is what the Christianists always do when confronted with actual evidence of evolution.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.
> 
> You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.
> 
> So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.
> 
> And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.
> 
> I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.
> 
> If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.
> 
> But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?
> 
> Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?
> 
> Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.
> 
> So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.
> 
> The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.
> 
> Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.
> 
> Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll get there in due time, but I want to see you squirm in explaining how Wegener came up with 300 million years old strata in 1915.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't the person citing Wegener as a 'Creation Scientist'.
> 
> I am just quoting him to show your claims about him are debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> , Lord Kelvin, another creation scientist, estimated the earth to be 20 million to 400 million years old by ASSUMING)
Click to expand...


So we have another 'Creation Scientist'(lol) telling Creationist that the world is hundreds of millions of years old.

And again- you don't believe the persons to even claim to be on your side.

So lets see- you have trotted out two scientists that you have labeled at 'Creation Scientists'- and both have agreed that the world is millions of years old.

Which directly contradicts your Christianist claims to the age of the world.

Are you next going to trot out a 'Creation' scientist who explains that the sun was actually created before the earth?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
> can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
> 
> 
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..
Click to expand...


No- you just made that claim in post #402. 

Nothing was ever debunked. 


They are not sterile
They reproduce with their own kind
Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
AKA a species.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you think is more likely?  Aramaic people who migrated to Africa and became darker skinned.  Also, Aramaic people migrated to Scandinavia to become lighter skinned.
> 
> There is the migration pattern from Pangaea, but also from Gondwanaland that connected to Pangaea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
Click to expand...


I love how you cite articles that discuss how the earth is millions of years old- in support of your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It happened in one day --- day 6.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just made that claim in post #402.
> 
> Nothing was ever debunked.
> 
> 
> They are not sterile
> They reproduce with their own kind
> Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
> AKA a species.
Click to expand...


Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce.  It's common in the plant kingdom.  I can't help it if you do not know what it is.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you think is more likely?  Aramaic people who migrated to Africa and became darker skinned.  Also, Aramaic people migrated to Scandinavia to become lighter skinned.
> 
> There is the migration pattern from Pangaea, but also from Gondwanaland that connected to Pangaea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you cite articles that discuss how the earth is millions of years old- in support of your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
Click to expand...


Your serious belief in evolution has jaded you.  None of us have seen a black African become a white person in population studies even through hybridization.  Michael Jackson doesn't count.  However, Aramaens can get become white skinned with blond hair and blue eyes.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just made that claim in post #402.
> 
> Nothing was ever debunked.
> 
> 
> They are not sterile
> They reproduce with their own kind
> Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
> AKA a species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce.  It's common in the plant kingdom.  I can't help it if you do not know what it is.
Click to expand...


Okay- so we are in agreement that the story I cited was an actual example of a new species being formed in nature in recorded history- contrary to everything you Christianists have claimed.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you think is more likely?  Aramaic people who migrated to Africa and became darker skinned.  Also, Aramaic people migrated to Scandinavia to become lighter skinned.
> 
> There is the migration pattern from Pangaea, but also from Gondwanaland that connected to Pangaea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you cite articles that discuss how the earth is millions of years old- in support of your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your serious belief in evolution has jaded you.  None of us have seen a black African become a white person in population studies even through hybridization.  Michael Jackson doesn't count.  However, Aramaens can get become white skinned with blond hair and blue eyes.
Click to expand...


I have no idea why you responded my post about Koalas with 'black Africans'

Again-
Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you think is more likely?  Aramaic people who migrated to Africa and became darker skinned.  Also, Aramaic people migrated to Scandinavia to become lighter skinned.
> 
> There is the migration pattern from Pangaea, but also from Gondwanaland that connected to Pangaea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you cite articles that discuss how the earth is millions of years old- in support of your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your serious belief in evolution has jaded you.  None of us have seen a black African become a white person in population studies even through hybridization.  Michael Jackson doesn't count.  However, Aramaens can get become white skinned with blond hair and blue eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you responded my post about Koalas with 'black Africans'
> 
> Again-
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
Click to expand...


I already explained in post #587.  You said evolution explained it, but didn't explain how.  It means that you don't know how.

Here is what I said and thus asked you a question.

"Wegener's theories eventually led to plate tectonics as we have discussed._* Now, how does plate tectonics relate to another creation scientist from Darwin's time Alfred Russel Wallace? *_Wallace and Darwin came up with evolution by natural selection around the same time. (There was another creation scientist, Edward Blyth, who came up with evo by natural selection before them.)"

The Wallace line explains it and the kangaroos and koalas weren't like they are today on Noah's ark.  Now, please explain how Africas became white Scandinavians with blond hair and blue eyes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact


Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
Click to expand...


I have and it's bullsh*t.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and it's bullsh*t.
Click to expand...

Given the overwhelming g umber if iflse thongs ythongs you have said about it...no, you clean haven't. You would getauhhed iutof a jjgh school science class. You have a not a shred of evidence or published science to support any of your embarrassing bullshit.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and it's bullsh*t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the overwhelming g umber if iflse thongs ythongs you have said about it...no, you clean haven't. You would getauhhed iutof a jjgh school science class. You have a not a shred of evidence or published science to support any of your embarrassing bullshit.
Click to expand...


Can you speak English?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and it's bullsh*t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the overwhelming g umber if iflse thongs ythongs you have said about it...no, you clean haven't. You would getauhhed iutof a jjgh school science class. You have a not a shred of evidence or published science to support any of your embarrassing bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you speak English?
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. I apologize if I 9ffended your delicate sensibiyies by not checking the typos.  Let's review:

You have not a shred of empirical evidence or published science to support any if you're embarrassing nonsense, nor is anyone on the planet producing any. You would get laughed out of any high school science class. No, you have not paid attention, as is clear from the many false things you have said. You make basic errors that a child would not make, regarding this topic. Enjoy dancing and prancing in your little internet safe spot, freak.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and it's bullsh*t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the overwhelming g umber if iflse thongs ythongs you have said about it...no, you clean haven't. You would getauhhed iutof a jjgh school science class. You have a not a shred of evidence or published science to support any of your embarrassing bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank you. I apologize if I 9ffended your delicate sensibiyies by not checking the typos.  Let's review:
> 
> You have not a shred of empirical evidence or published science to support any if you're embarrassing nonsense, nor is anyone on the planet producing any. You would get laughed out of any high school science class. No, you have not paid attention, as is clear from the many false things you have said. You make basic errors that a child would not make, regarding this topic. Enjoy dancing and prancing in your little internet safe spot, freak.
Click to expand...


I have the evidence and have presented it throughout such as only life begats life.  It explained the chicken came before the egg and science with the help of a supercomputer showed that the shell was made of a protein which only the hen's ovaries can produce.  That backs what the Bible said in that God created adult animals.  Neil Degrasse Tyson argued there a proto-chicken that laid the first chicken egg but the supercomputer didn't even bother checking that stupid remark.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you just can't stand up for what you believe in- can you?
> 
> First of all you need to explain what theory 'creation science' is- in the same terms that evolution science is.
> 
> Then you would provide this evidence that fits the theory of Christian Science.
> 
> So go for it- and remember- arguing again about something about evolution- is not a fact about Creation.
> 
> Facts that support your theory.
> 
> Go.
> 
> 
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?
> 
> Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.
Click to expand...

Where’s the evidence?


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
Click to expand...

And Creation can be a scientific study and fact. Reciprocate!


----------



## LittleNipper

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FLOOD supports the theory of Creation and is the only rational reason there are so many fossils discovered at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?
> 
> Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where’s the evidence?
Click to expand...

Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.


----------



## sealybobo

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- explain how.
> 
> If you are talking about the Biblical flood- then according to the Bible it covered the entire earth- including Mount Everest- by 15 cubits! Show me the science that would provide for that much water earth.
> 
> When did the Flood take place? Again according to Biblical scholars the Bible indicates it happened less than 6,000 years ago- how were fossils of dinosaurs created in less than 6,000 years?
> 
> Finally- presuming that there was a Biblical flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth except what was on the Ark (again per the Bible)- how were the species re-distributed around the Earth? According to the Bible all of the animals in the Ark were released at Mt. Ararat. So how did kangaroos end up in Australia- and not in India? How did Galpagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos- and nowhere else? How did elephant birds end up on Madagascar?
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain dinosaur fossils, geology does. But dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution- as does the dispersal of animals around the globe.
> 
> The fairy tales of the Bible don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?
> 
> Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where’s the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.
Click to expand...

So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.

So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just made that claim in post #402.
> 
> Nothing was ever debunked.
> 
> 
> They are not sterile
> They reproduce with their own kind
> Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
> AKA a species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce.  It's common in the plant kingdom.  I can't help it if you do not know what it is.
Click to expand...


So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you think is more likely?  Aramaic people who migrated to Africa and became darker skinned.  Also, Aramaic people migrated to Scandinavia to become lighter skinned.
> 
> There is the migration pattern from Pangaea, but also from Gondwanaland that connected to Pangaea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you cite articles that discuss how the earth is millions of years old- in support of your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your serious belief in evolution has jaded you.  None of us have seen a black African become a white person in population studies even through hybridization.  Michael Jackson doesn't count.  However, Aramaens can get become white skinned with blond hair and blue eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you responded my post about Koalas with 'black Africans'
> 
> Again-
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already explained in post #587.  You said evolution explained it, but didn't explain how.  It means that you don't know how..
Click to expand...


Nope- post #587 doesn't even mention kangaroos or koala's.

Let us recap:
a) you claim the earth is 6,000 years old and every species alive today was on Noah's Ark during a flood that covered Mt. Everest 4,400 years ago- and at that time 4,400 years ago all of Earth was one super continent.
b) To support this claim you have cited two geologists- both of whom are specific that the earth is millions of years old- and plate tectonics- and again both of your cited geologists talk of plate tectonics in terms of millions of years.
c) Mt. Ararat theoretically is somewhere in the fertile crescent- say between Turkey and Iraq. 
d) How did koala's and kangaroos get from Mt. Ararat to what is now Australia- but nowhere else? How did virtually every marsupial end up in Australia- and nowhere else?
e) When did Australia separate from the rest of Asia? 
     - 4,000 years ago? 
     - 3,000 years ago?
     - 2,000 years ago?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you think is more likely?  Aramaic people who migrated to Africa and became darker skinned.  Also, Aramaic people migrated to Scandinavia to become lighter skinned.
> 
> There is the migration pattern from Pangaea, but also from Gondwanaland that connected to Pangaea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you cite articles that discuss how the earth is millions of years old- in support of your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your serious belief in evolution has jaded you.  None of us have seen a black African become a white person in population studies even through hybridization.  Michael Jackson doesn't count.  However, Aramaens can get become white skinned with blond hair and blue eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you responded my post about Koalas with 'black Africans'
> 
> Again-
> Still waiting for the fascinating story of how virtually every marsupial ended up in Australia- how all the kangaroos and koala's made their way from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started their mad dash away from each other 4,400 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already explained in post #587.  You said evolution explained it, but didn't explain how.  It means that you don't know how.
> 
> Here is what I said and thus asked you a question.
> 
> The Wallace line explains it and the kangaroos and koalas weren't like they are today on Noah's ark.  Now, please explain how Africas became white Scandinavians with blond hair and blue eyes.
Click to expand...


Migration and evolution. 
Scandinavians are Scandinavians because of human migration. 
Skin color, hair color and eye colors are all the results of different actions but all the result of evolution. Even the contribution of Neanderthal DNA possibly affecting skin, hair and eye color is itself a matter of evolution- since the only reason why Humans and Neanderthals could interbred successfully is because we both evolved from a common species. 

It will come to a surprise to the Christianists out there but Jesus probably was not blond and blue eyed. But was Adam? 

Human Skin Color Variation
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color.
Find out How Skin Color Evolved

The most current theory- and we are learning more about skin color, hair color and eye color all the time- is that humans when we left Africa were all dark skinned- but through evolution- humans with lighter skin reproduced more outside of Africa- and became lighter skinned. Then through migration there were populations that moved to areas with greater sun exposure and evolved dark skin again. Why did different skin colors provide competitive advantages? One intriguing theory is reproduction and the effects of vitamin D.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have and it's bullsh*t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the overwhelming g umber if iflse thongs ythongs you have said about it...no, you clean haven't. You would getauhhed iutof a jjgh school science class. You have a not a shred of evidence or published science to support any of your embarrassing bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank you. I apologize if I 9ffended your delicate sensibiyies by not checking the typos.  Let's review:
> 
> You have not a shred of empirical evidence or published science to support any if you're embarrassing nonsense, nor is anyone on the planet producing any. You would get laughed out of any high school science class. No, you have not paid attention, as is clear from the many false things you have said. You make basic errors that a child would not make, regarding this topic. Enjoy dancing and prancing in your little internet safe spot, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That backs what the Bible said in that God created adult animals.  Neil Degrasse Tyson argued there a proto-chicken that laid the first chicken egg but the supercomputer didn't even bother checking that stupid remark.
Click to expand...


Because computers only check what it is asked to do. 

Of course a bird laid the first chicken egg- it just wasn't a modern chicken. It was either slightly different or dramatically different depending on the level of change.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have and it's bullsh*t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the overwhelming g umber if iflse thongs ythongs you have said about it...no, you clean haven't. You would getauhhed iutof a jjgh school science class. You have a not a shred of evidence or published science to support any of your embarrassing bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank you. I apologize if I 9ffended your delicate sensibiyies by not checking the typos.  Let's review:
> 
> You have not a shred of empirical evidence or published science to support any if you're embarrassing nonsense, nor is anyone on the planet producing any. You would get laughed out of any high school science class. No, you have not paid attention, as is clear from the many false things you have said. You make basic errors that a child would not make, regarding this topic. Enjoy dancing and prancing in your little internet safe spot, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the evidence and have presented it throughout such as only life begats life.  It explained the chicken came before the egg and science with the help of a supercomputer showed that the shell was made of a protein which only the hen's ovaries can produce.  That backs what the Bible said in that God created adult animals.  Neil Degrasse Tyson argued there a proto-chicken that laid the first chicken egg but the supercomputer didn't even bother checking that stupid remark.
Click to expand...

You have not a shred of evidence.  Your laughably terrible argument amounts only to, "things I have not seen with my eyes cannot be true". As any educated, rational person knows, the fact that this is stupid is why we invented the scientific method.

Sorry , you are presenting no actual challenge to the theory if evolution, which is an established fact. You know  nothing about evolution, or about how science works.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Creation can be a scientific study and fact. Reciprocate!
Click to expand...


Creation could be a scientific theory- except there is no science to back up the story of the Bible.

Why are Christians so coy about calling it Creation- rather than the story of the Bible?


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just made that claim in post #402.
> 
> Nothing was ever debunked.
> 
> 
> They are not sterile
> They reproduce with their own kind
> Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
> AKA a species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce.  It's common in the plant kingdom.  I can't help it if you do not know what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.
Click to expand...


What they want to see is a fish turn into a mammal or a reptile turn into a mammal.


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?



Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.


----------



## sealybobo

Because for many species, humans included, evolution happens over the course of many thousands of years, it is rare to observe the process in a human lifetime. Usually only laboratory scientists studying quickly reproducing life forms, like single-celled creatures and some invertebrates, have the opportunity to see evolutionary change happen before their eyes. All of us can and do experience the indirect effects of evolution nearly every day, however. One of the more important evolutionary concerns facing humans today is the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes. A battle against bacteria that we have been winning with medicine for the last 50 years or so is now an even race, according to some scientists -- because of the rapid rate of bacterial evolution. Similarly, the use of pesticides in agriculture has driven the evolution of resistant insects that require more or harsher chemicals to be killed. Scientists studying Galapagos finches have seen evolutionary changes in beak size and shape in just a few years. Major evolutionary transformations take much, much longer.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?
> 
> Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where’s the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.
> 
> So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance
Click to expand...


The poof hypothesis by invisible particles, according to atheist scientists, is for multiverses and universes.  Yet, it can't work for earth, humans, chickens, oak trees, etc.  However, there are no poof proto-chickens as Neil Tyson Bill Nye are dumb AF.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
Click to expand...


>>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<

Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.

>>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<

The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.

I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
Click to expand...

Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.
> 
> Great article.
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just made that claim in post #402.
> 
> Nothing was ever debunked.
> 
> 
> They are not sterile
> They reproduce with their own kind
> Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
> AKA a species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce.  It's common in the plant kingdom.  I can't help it if you do not know what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they want to see is a fish turn into a mammal or a reptile turn into a mammal.
Click to expand...


No what they want to see is the Second Coming.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years..



Gotta give James dancing cred- he can twist with the best of them.

He both proclaims that evolution proves Darwin wrong- and also that evolution doesn't exist.

He both claims that the world is 6,000 years old- and that it is millions of years old.

Still waiting to hear how those Koala's sprinted from Iraq to Australia......


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta give James dancing cred- he can twist with the best of them.
> 
> He both proclaims that evolution proves Darwin wrong- and also that evolution doesn't exist.
> 
> He both claims that the world is 6,000 years old- and that it is millions of years old.
> 
> Still waiting to hear how those Koala's sprinted from Iraq to Australia......
Click to expand...


I'm not taking James seriously.  Others have done a much better job twisting.  Boss & Ding were/are better.


----------



## LittleNipper

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water?  Water is one of the fine tuning parameters.  The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath.  Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep.  There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today.  The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood.  Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down.  This is catastrophism.  Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water.  Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed.  Life was cut short to around 120 years.  Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood.  I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface.  How's that coming along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?
> 
> Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where’s the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.
> 
> So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance
Click to expand...

What do you have against an all omnipotent LORD GOD creating a fully developed and perfect specimen?


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Creation can be a scientific study and fact. Reciprocate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation could be a scientific theory- except there is no science to back up the story of the Bible.
> 
> Why are Christians so coy about calling it Creation- rather than the story of the Bible?
Click to expand...

What is so scientific about fabricating a story that attempts to answer the reason we exist exclusive of a Creator? I believe that Christians are demonstrating that what the Bible has to say isn't of their invention.And I would have to believe most people calling themselves "Christian" believe that the Bible is of GOD's revelation.


----------



## sealybobo

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?
> 
> Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where’s the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.
> 
> So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you have against an all omnipotent LORD GOD creating a fully developed and perfect specimen?
Click to expand...

Ridiculous


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
Click to expand...


Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.

"Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? 
Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:

"When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.

As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."

Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- you just made that claim in post #402.
> 
> Nothing was ever debunked.
> 
> 
> They are not sterile
> They reproduce with their own kind
> Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
> AKA a species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce.  It's common in the plant kingdom.  I can't help it if you do not know what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they want to see is a fish turn into a mammal or a reptile turn into a mammal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what they want to see is the Second Coming.
Click to expand...


We're ALL going to see the second coming.  Some will be spiritually alive while others will be spiritually dead.

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."  Ephesians 2:1-10


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?
> 
> P.S.  Did you ever answer our question?  What came first adult human or baby humans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?
> 
> Adult Adam and Eve.  All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where’s the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.
> 
> So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you have against an all omnipotent LORD GOD creating a fully developed and perfect specimen?
Click to expand...


You show me evidence of that omnipotent Lord God doing that- and explain why that Omnipotent God allows babies to be tortured- and we can talk.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact.  Pay attention!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Creation can be a scientific study and fact. Reciprocate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation could be a scientific theory- except there is no science to back up the story of the Bible.
> 
> Why are Christians so coy about calling it Creation- rather than the story of the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is so scientific about fabricating a story that attempts to answer the reason we exist exclusive of a Creator? I believe that Christians are demonstrating that what the Bible has to say isn't of their invention.And I would have to believe most people calling themselves "Christian" believe that the Bible is of GOD's revelation.
Click to expand...


What is scientific is following the evidence- not a book written 2,000 years ago.

But great way to miss my point- why do Christians call themselves Creationists when they just mean Christians?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam.-
Click to expand...


Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809. 

The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers.  They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed. 

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- you just made that claim in post #402.
> 
> Nothing was ever debunked.
> 
> 
> They are not sterile
> They reproduce with their own kind
> Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
> AKA a species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce.  It's common in the plant kingdom.  I can't help it if you do not know what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they want to see is a fish turn into a mammal or a reptile turn into a mammal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what they want to see is the Second Coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're ALL going to see the second coming.  Some will be spiritually alive while others will be spiritually dead.
Click to expand...


See I have no problem with you believing that- if that is what you believe it doesn't affect me in any way.

But I am very curious as to how Christians explain how Koala's got from Mount Ararat to Australia. 

Right before the continents started to be flung violently around the earth.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam.-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809.
> 
> The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers.  They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed.
> 
> Curse of Ham - Wikipedia
> 
> Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.
Click to expand...


Your argument is to change the subject and use racist falsity.  We are discussing racist white man Darwin and the affect he had on social Darwinists, eugenics, Hitler and other racist organizations such a Planned Parenthood.

"*Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?*
His anniversary has thrown a fresh spotlight on ideas about race that still excite his friends and foes. Marek Kohn looks at a troublesome legacy

Among the family heirlooms that Charles Darwin inherited, symbolically speaking, was a china cameo depicting a black slave in chains, asking "Am I not a man and a brother?" The image had been mass-produced as a campaigning device, some 20 years before Charles's birth, by his grandfather, the potter Josiah Wedgwood. An impassioned and active opposition to slavery was at the heart of the Darwin-Wedgwood family's values.

The cameo's question has long since been answered once and for all in the affirmative, but the questions about race that led on from it seemingly refuse to accept that they have been settled. Religion may have monopolised Darwinian controversy lately, but race remains a source of unease and suspicion. The fault-lines Adrian Desmond and James Moore have been treading in their new book Darwin's Sacred Cause: race, slavery and the quest for human origins (Allen Lane, £25) are still active.

When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave's question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

By the mid-19th-century, many influential voices denied that the enslaved African was a brother, and it was broadly taken for granted that as a man, he was of an inferior sort to his white master. Darwin stepped into the centre of the stage just when such ideas were helping to tear the northern and southern states of America apart."

...

"As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of "savages" a matter of indifference, Darwin's own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism. Starkly displaying his own readiness to apply his ideas to society, he observed in The Descent of Man that "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world"."

Let us admit that Darwin's attitudes on race were ugly.

Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?

++++++++

Curse of Ham BS by Syriusly 
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-blacks.html


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam.-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809.
> 
> The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers.  They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed.
> 
> Curse of Ham - Wikipedia
> 
> Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is to change the subject and use racist falsity.  We are discussing racist white man Darwin and the affect he had on social Darwinists, eugenics, Hitler and other racist organizations such a Planned Parenthood.l
Click to expand...


LOL you are the one who has changed the subject to Darwin's racism- not me. 

None of which has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.

I was just pointing out another fallacy you posted.

As I said before- you dance, dance, dance away from the topic.

Tell us again how you believe the world is only 6,000 years old and then cite 'Creation Scientists' who said the world is millions of years old. 

Better yet- tell us how those damn koala's got from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started hurtling away from each other at over a mile a year.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
Click to expand...

Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.

We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.

The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam.-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809.
> 
> The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers.  They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed.
> 
> Curse of Ham - Wikipedia
> 
> Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is to change the subject and use racist falsity.  We are discussing racist white man Darwin and the affect he had on social Darwinists, eugenics, Hitler and other racist organizations such a Planned Parenthood.
> 
> "*Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?*
> His anniversary has thrown a fresh spotlight on ideas about race that still excite his friends and foes. Marek Kohn looks at a troublesome legacy
> 
> Among the family heirlooms that Charles Darwin inherited, symbolically speaking, was a china cameo depicting a black slave in chains, asking "Am I not a man and a brother?" The image had been mass-produced as a campaigning device, some 20 years before Charles's birth, by his grandfather, the potter Josiah Wedgwood. An impassioned and active opposition to slavery was at the heart of the Darwin-Wedgwood family's values.
> 
> The cameo's question has long since been answered once and for all in the affirmative, but the questions about race that led on from it seemingly refuse to accept that they have been settled. Religion may have monopolised Darwinian controversy lately, but race remains a source of unease and suspicion. The fault-lines Adrian Desmond and James Moore have been treading in their new book Darwin's Sacred Cause: race, slavery and the quest for human origins (Allen Lane, £25) are still active.
> 
> When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave's question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> By the mid-19th-century, many influential voices denied that the enslaved African was a brother, and it was broadly taken for granted that as a man, he was of an inferior sort to his white master. Darwin stepped into the centre of the stage just when such ideas were helping to tear the northern and southern states of America apart."
> 
> ...
> 
> "As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of "savages" a matter of indifference, Darwin's own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism. Starkly displaying his own readiness to apply his ideas to society, he observed in The Descent of Man that "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world"."
> 
> Let us admit that Darwin's attitudes on race were ugly.
> 
> Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> Curse of Ham BS by Syriusly
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-blacks.html
Click to expand...

We aren’t talking about social Darwinism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Neil Tyson Bill Nye are dumb AF.


Haha...wow. You would get laughed out of a middle school science class. And you are calling Tyson dumb? You really are a special little retard.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.
> 
> We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.
> 
> The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans
Click to expand...


I'm not making them racist as I wasn't there.  However, I can figure out how a science book becomes a best seller overnight.  One is the creation vs atheist science aspect.  The other is the racist aspect of how apes became blacks and then whites.  The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family.  The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands.  There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.  Syriusly is still stuck on his polyploidy plant ha ha.  Moreover, the creation scientists are correct in explaining how the population grew so fast and it matches the number we have in the world population today.  It's impossible to have today's population if humans existed for a longer time than 6,000 years such as 200,000 years.

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neil Tyson Bill Nye are dumb AF.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...wow. You would get laughed out of a middle school science class. And you are calling Tyson dumb? You really are a special little retard.
Click to expand...


Degrasse and Billy boy are both tards, but smarter than you.  Anyone here is.  Recently, Tyson was called out for his boring science takes by Merriam- Webster two days ago and by Netflix today.  I think Neil means boring and Degrasse means dumb AF.  Tyson probably means a-hole atheist.  Boring dumb af a-hole atheist.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.
> 
> We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.
> 
> The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family.  The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands.  There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.
Click to expand...


LOL- 'creation scientists'. 

So was Noah's family black or white? 
If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black? 
If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?

Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.


----------



## james bond

Neil Tyson has become Grandpa Simpson.  He's a grumpy, ornery old coot.

"People Have Had Enough Of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Grumpiness On Twitter
*by Penn Collins *
April 13, 2018 at 17:20

The worlds of science and pop culture don’t often collide (at least in our nonfictional realm), but that hasn’t kept noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson from achieving bona fide celebrity thanks to his witty approaches to science and its practical applications.

But recently, deGrasse Tyson’s online musings have veered from the fascinating to the somewhat ornery, likely costing him a bit amount of public goodwill in the process. 

As with so many public figures, deGrasse Tyson uses social media to convey his various opinions, witticisms, and thoughtful takes on global issues. However, a recent “get off my lawn” type tweet about the evolution of language has even his fans wondering if he’s devolving in regard to the insight he provides. 

Here it is, lamenting the dilution of the word “awesome,” which has likely been occurring since deGrasse Tyson was a young boy. He nonetheless felt that 2018 was a good time to broach the subject."

People Have Had Enough Of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Grumpiness On Twitter

Not only that, he's known to ruin and spoil movies.

Netflix Roasts Neil deGrasse Tyson for ‘Ruining’ Movies Like ‘Armageddon’ on Twitter


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  Moreover, the creation scientists are correct in explaining how the population grew so fast and it matches the number we have in the world population today.  It's impossible to have today's population if humans existed for a longer time than 6,000 years such as 200,000 years.
> 
> Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating that you think a Chemist is an expert on how human populations exist today.
> 
> The 'article' such as it is- is laughable- of course humans can multiply theoretically doubling the human population every 150 years. But of course- human population can also diminish- due to wars and plague and famine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neil Tyson Bill Nye are dumb AF.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...wow. You would get laughed out of a middle school science class. And you are calling Tyson dumb? You really are a special little retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Degrasse and Billy boy are both tards, but smarter than you.  Anyone here is.  Recently, Tyson was called out for his boring science takes by Merriam- Webster two days ago and by Netflix today.  I think Neil means boring and Degrasse means dumb AF.  Tyson probably means a-hole atheist.  Boring dumb af a-hole atheist.
Click to expand...


Christians do despise real scientists.


----------



## Syriusly

Isn't it fascinating that James wants to talk about anything but evolution? Or the Christian theories on how the diversity of life on earth came to be?

Tell us how those damn koala's got from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started hurtling away from each other at over a mile a year. (and all of the other marsupials- but nowhere else)

How did the Galapagos Tortoises end up there- and nowhere else?

Was there some sort of Bible Bus that drove them all around to their new homes?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS.  Changes over long time are found only in fossils.  However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed.  We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer.  Possibly by a global flood.
> 
> >>s:  Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<
> 
> The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory.  Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils.  There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.
> 
> I read people being killed by other people every day.  This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.
> 
> We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.
> 
> The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family.  The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands.  There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- 'creation scientists'.
> 
> So was Noah's family black or white?
> If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
> If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?
> 
> Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.
Click to expand...


Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin.  Neither can you explain the size of today's population if we've been around 200,000 years.  

OTOH, I already explained how whites came from Noah's Aramaean  or Gentile family through migration patterns on the supercontinents and how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size.  I knew it went over your head.

I would think Noah's family was of the following color, listed as "natural," but it could be that some were darker while some were lighter skinned:  





Now, listen to the racism of Darwin's hypothesis.  If Alfred Russel Wallace who opposed eugenics prevailed over Darwin, then we probably would've had less racism today.

"Indigenous Australians have been referred to as "black people" in Australia since the early days of European settlement.[72] While originally related to skin colour, the term is used to today to indicate Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry in general and can refer to people of any skin pigmentation.[73]

Being identified as either "black" or "white" in Australia during the 19th and early 20th centuries was critical in one's employment and social prospects. Various state-based Aboriginal Protection Boards were established which had virtually complete control over the lives of Indigenous Australians – where they lived, their employment, marriage, education and included the power to separate children from their parents.[74][75][76] Aborigines were not allowed to vote and were often confined to reserves and forced into low paid or effectively slave labour.[77][78] The social position of mixed-race or "half-caste" individuals varied over time. A 1913 report by Sir Baldwin Spencer states that:

the half-castes belong neither to the aboriginal nor to the whites, yet, on the whole, they have more leaning towards the former; … One thing is certain and that is that the white population as a whole will never mix with half-castes... the best and kindest thing is to place them on reserves along with the natives, train them in the same schools and encourage them to marry amongst themselves.[79]

After the First World War, however, it became apparent that the number of mixed-race people was growing at a faster rate than the white population, and by 1930 fear of the "half-caste menace" undermining the White Australia ideal from within was being taken as a serious concern.[80] Dr. Cecil Cook, the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, noted that:

generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.[81]

The official policy became one of biological and cultural assimilation: "Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white".[82] This led to different treatment for "black" and "half-caste" individuals, with lighter-skinned individuals targeted for removal from their families to be raised as "white" people, restricted from speaking their native language and practising traditional customs, a process now known as the Stolen Generation.[83]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#cite_note-83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Moreover, the creation scientists are correct in explaining how the population grew so fast and it matches the number we have in the world population today.


Haha, no they aren't...their hilarious bullshit is demonstrably false, using mitochondrial DNA. Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.
> 
> We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.
> 
> The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family.  The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands.  There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- 'creation scientists'.
> 
> So was Noah's family black or white?
> If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
> If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?
> 
> Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin.
Click to expand...


Why would I answer your question about Darwin which has nothing to do with Evolution

You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin- rather than the theory of Evolution versus the Bible.

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution and the Bible.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.
> 
> We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.
> 
> The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family.  The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands.  There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- 'creation scientists'.
> 
> So was Noah's family black or white?
> If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
> If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?
> 
> Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin.  Neither can you explain the size of today's population if we've been around 200,000 years.
> 
> OTOH, I already explained how whites came from Noah's Aramaean  or Gentile family through migration patterns on the supercontinents and how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size.  I knew it went over your head.
> 
> I would think Noah's family was of the following color, listed as "natural," but it could be that some were darker while some were lighter skinned:
Click to expand...

So you think Noah's family included Asians- and blonds and blacks- all descended from Noah and his wife. 

I presume you know a thing or two about genetics- and how genetic traits are carried on- exactly how did that all come to be?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.
> 
> We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.
> 
> The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family.  The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands.  There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- 'creation scientists'.
> 
> So was Noah's family black or white?
> If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
> If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?
> 
> Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin.  Neither can you explain the size of today's population if we've been around 200,000 years.
> 
> OTOH, I already explained how whites came from Noah's Aramaean  or Gentile family through migration patterns on the supercontinents and how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size.  I knew it went over your head.
> 
> I would think Noah's family was of the following color, listed as "natural," but it could be that some were darker while some were lighter skinned:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, listen to the racism of Darwin's hypothesis.  If Alfred Russel Wallace who opposed eugenics prevailed over Darwin, then we probably would've had less racism today.
> 
> "Indigenous Australians have been referred to as "black people" in Australia since the early days of European settlement.[72] While originally related to skin colour, the term is used to today to indicate Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry in general and can refer to people of any skin pigmentation.[73]
> 
> Being identified as either "black" or "white" in Australia during the 19th and early 20th centuries was critical in one's employment and social prospects. Various state-based Aboriginal Protection Boards were established which had virtually complete control over the lives of Indigenous Australians – where they lived, their employment, marriage, education and included the power to separate children from their parents.[74][75][76] Aborigines were not allowed to vote and were often confined to reserves and forced into low paid or effectively slave labour.[77][78] The social position of mixed-race or "half-caste" individuals varied over time. A 1913 report by Sir Baldwin Spencer states that:
> 
> the half-castes belong neither to the aboriginal nor to the whites, yet, on the whole, they have more leaning towards the former; … One thing is certain and that is that the white population as a whole will never mix with half-castes... the best and kindest thing is to place them on reserves along with the natives, train them in the same schools and encourage them to marry amongst themselves.[79]
> 
> After the First World War, however, it became apparent that the number of mixed-race people was growing at a faster rate than the white population, and by 1930 fear of the "half-caste menace" undermining the White Australia ideal from within was being taken as a serious concern.[80] Dr. Cecil Cook, the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, noted that:
> 
> generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.[81]
> 
> The official policy became one of biological and cultural assimilation: "Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white".[82] This led to different treatment for "black" and "half-caste" individuals, with lighter-skinned individuals targeted for removal from their families to be raised as "white" people, restricted from speaking their native language and practising traditional customs, a process now known as the Stolen Generation.[83]"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people
Click to expand...


And now you go off on a completely different tangent- on Australian aborigines. 

Still waiting to hear how all of the marsupials got to Australia and virtually nowhere else.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people.  Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago.  People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable.  Why else would a science book sell out in one day?  Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.
> 
> "Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
> Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:
> 
> "When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.
> 
> Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.
> 
> As he got older, especially in his famous, _The Descent of Man_, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."
> 
> Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.
> 
> We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.
> 
> The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family.  The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands.  There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- 'creation scientists'.
> 
> So was Noah's family black or white?
> If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
> If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?
> 
> Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, I already explained how .... how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size.
Click to expand...


LOL you provided an opinion by a chemist as to how the human population came to be today's population size- absolutely no proof that actually happened just an opinion post in a Christian website. 

Still waiting for how the marsupials all ended up in Australia and nowhere else.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution



You won't because when I explain an answer using evolution you do not understand.  You do not understand evolution such as Wallace line and plate tectonics.  There's no point in discussing ToE with you further if you claim to understand science and then when I discuss it with you like an adult who understands evolution, i.e. an educated atheist and not an internet atheist like Fort Fun Indiana, the answer goes over your head.  If you do not understand evolution or have questions about evolution, then go to the website that I use -- evolution.berkeley.edu.  You do not even understand polyploidy, so you have to look it up for yourself.  



Syriusly said:


> You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin



We have to realize that Darwin was wrong about changes over long time and tree of life (bushes of life).  Rapid evolution by natural selection is what happens.  Not slow evolution by natural selection over millions of years.  Racist Darwin needs to be destroyed.  Today's scientists know where to look, so they'll be able to track and find rapid evolution.  Richard Dawkins is allowing until 2050 for tree of life.  I think we'll have the answer to tree of life vs bushes of life around 2020.  Thus, patience is required.

Finally, atheist scientists will have to find that common ancestors for macroevolution is wrong and that macroevolution does not happen.  I'm not sure if this will happen.  The world will end before then.  One estimate for the end of the world is 2060 by Sir Isaac Newton, a creation scientist.  However, all of these end of world predictions (the prophecy is that it will happen, we will know who the antichrist is and wisdom is necessary because if we believe in an untruth, then we can be deceived) may not be accurate.  It may be way off.  Only God knows when it will happen and he'll keep it a secret until it starts to happen.  Then everyone will know.

Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't because when I explain an answer using evolution you do not understand.  You do not understand evolution such as Wallace line and plate tectonics.  There's no point in discussing ToE with you further if you claim to understand science and then when I discuss it with you like an adult who understands evolution,.
Click to expand...


I won't go down your rabbit hole of claims of what scientists thought in 1880 or 1920.

You want to talk 'plate tectonics'- fine- your 'Creation Scientists'- the ones you quoted- stated that it would take millions of years- they contradict the Christian 'theories'.

If you want to use 'plate tectonics' to either 
a) dispute evolution or
b) 'prove the Bible creation stories are fact

Then provide evidence that supports either of those- not authors who directly disagree with you. 

If you want to use the "Wallace line" to either
a) dispute evolution or
b) 'prove the Bible creation stories are fact'

Then do so without some discussion about how Wallace was a racist or blah blah blah or some other irrelevant discussion


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to realize that Darwin was wrong about changes over long time and tree of life (bushes of life).  Rapid evolution by natural selection is what happens.  Not slow evolution by natural selection over millions of years.  Racist Darwin needs to be destroyed.  Today's scientists know where to look, so they'll be able to track and find rapid evolution.  Richard Dawkins is allowing until 2050 for tree of life.  I think we'll have the answer to tree of life vs bushes of life around 2020.  Thus, patience is required..
Click to expand...


Certainly Darwin was incorrect about many things- after all he was an early theorist and had far, far less scientific data to work with than what we have now. 

And so what? I am not arguing for Darwin- though he was the genius who got the world thinking in the right direction- I am arguing for Evolution- and you are attempting to argue against Evolution- though you keep mashing it all up together.

Today's scientists are pretty much in consensus evolution is a fact- the mechanisms are still being explored- and the evidence now supports both rapid evolution- and evolution over time. 

The 'tree of life' and the 'bush of life' are as I pointed out earlier- and provided a citation for- are metaphors- there is no real 'tree of life' they are merely graphic representations of how we have best mapped the evolution of species. 

Remember though- citing someone's elses latest theory on evolution doesn't disprove evolution or support the Bible- it just shows that the details of the theory of evolution are 'evolving'


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.
Click to expand...


I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.

You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again

The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.  

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else. 

How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?

If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
Click to expand...


>>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<

Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?

Wallace line
"Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."

Plate tectonics
"The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."

...

"Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
Click to expand...


Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question. 

You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.

Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.

You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.

Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.

Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else. 

Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.

How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia. 

Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.  

I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin-


Yep! "The atheist scientist"...as if that has any bearing on the quality of the science. Somebody tell that dumbass that plenty of theist scientists both believe and research evolutionary theory ...


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
Click to expand...


Still dodging the question- I can keep asking

Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.

Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.

How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.

Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.


----------



## forkup

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't spend much time on this guy. He ignores what he can't answer and declares he won the argument when he finally gets people frustrated enough so they won't reply back. Believe me I spent months giving arguments covering nearly all sciences. You can't argue someone who isn't interested in having honest conversations.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science.  I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution.  They are evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
Click to expand...


We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.  You should have been able to figure it out.  It was answered several pages back as I said.  Again, I am right and you are wrong.

The separate question you want answered is the age of the earth.  The difference between you and I is the age of the earth.  Creation scientists know that God did not state the age of the earth.  He said that some things he will keep secret such as the beginning and the end.  However, God did give us a birth certificate in Genesis.  It allows creationists to figure out the age of the earth using the Biblical characters and timeline.  That's how they came up with 6,000 yr-old earth.

How Old Is the Earth?

One of the things you did not explain was the population.  How can a 200,000 years old humankind have population of only 6.5 B people.  A 6K-yr old earth and humankind does fit the 6.5 B population based on statistical analysis.  Thus, population statistics back up a 6K-yr old earth. 

The other question you have been avoiding is discussion of BS chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin.  Where is the evidence that the layers remained mostly undisturbed for 4.7 B years?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.
Click to expand...


The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature. 

Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that. 

Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.

Noah's Ark does not. 

How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.

Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
> 
> You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
> 
> The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
> 
> How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The separate question you want answered is the age of the earth.  The difference between you and I is the age of the earth.  Creation scientists know that God did not state the age of the earth.  He said that some things he will keep secret such as the beginning and the end.  However, God did give us a birth certificate in Genesis.  It allows creationists to figure out the age of the earth using the Biblical characters and timeline.  That's how they came up with 6,000 yr-old earth.
Click to expand...


I didn't answer the question regarding the age of the earth- other than to observe that your own citations put the age of the earth as millions of years old.

Do you believe it is millions of years old- or around 6,000 years old?

_If you believe it to be 6,000 years old- again- how did all the marsupials end up in Australia- and nowhere else?_


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep
> One of the things you did not explain was the population.  How can a 200,000 years old humankind have population of only 6.5 B people.  A 6K-yr old earth and humankind does fit the 6.5 B population based on statistical analysis.  Thus, population statistics back up a 6K-yr old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What 'statistical analysis'? You have an opinion paper by a chemist.
> 
> According to the 6,000 year old earth theory, all animals are descended from Noah's Ark's population about 4,400 years ago.
> 
> Given that mice can procreate 5-10 times a year- with litters of 5-6 each time- each which can reproduce in 30 days- the earth can only be about 100 years old- according to the current world wide population of mice.
> 
> In other words- your math doesn't exist in a vacuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



What 'statistical analysis'? You have an opinion paper by a chemist.

According to the 6,000 year old earth theory, all animals are descended from Noah's Ark's population about 4,400 years ago.

Given that mice can procreate 5-10 times a year- with litters of 5-6 each time- each which can reproduce in 30 days- the earth can only be about 100 years old- according to the current world wide population of mice.

In other words- your math doesn't exist in a vacuum


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep
> The other question you have been avoiding is discussion of BS chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin.  Where is the evidence that the layers remained mostly undisturbed for 4.7 B years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't really care about your discussion of 'chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin'.
> 
> You keep circling around and want to avoid talking about the current theory of Evolution by talking about stuff from 200 years ago.
> 
> Give me a real answer about marsupials, 6,000 years, Australia- and maybe I will bother with your layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Because I don't really care about your discussion of 'chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin'.

You keep circling around and want to avoid talking about the current theory of Evolution by talking about stuff from 200 years ago.

Give me a real answer about marsupials, 6,000 years, Australia- and maybe I will bother with your layers


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>S:  The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
> 
> Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
> 
> Way too much fodder in your posts to respond.  Ho hum.  Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu.  Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia.  Look over the link, does it answer your question?  Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
> 
> Wallace line
> "Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
> 
> Plate tectonics
> "The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.
> 
> Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.
> 
> Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.
> 
> Noah's Ark does not.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old
Click to expand...


I already answered this using evolution, but I can see it's not registering in your tainted brain.  What's in red is what's not registering.  Also, I presented the timeline differences between creation and evolution.  *There is no way to resolve the differences because the timelines are too vastly apart.  Creation's 6K years would be practically an invisible dot on the evolutionary timeline.*  Thus, creation scientists use the evolutionary timeline and evolution explained it as I linked.  However, that's not the whole creation story.  It's explained in the Bible how creatures migrated from Noah's ark.  However, I can't resolve the impossible of explaining the differences of time, but can explain using the Bible.

I believe Ararat isn't just the Mt. Ararat, but also the vast plain area and other mountains. 

Here's a creation science explanation:
"“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.

It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.
The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."

How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?

ETA:  What does the differences in time mean?  It means only one version can be true.  If God let us know the exact age of the earth, then it would prove God.  However, we need faith in God to learn from the Bible and find out God's Word.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

forkup said:


> You can't argue


And who really needs to argue with that nutball, anyway? It is well known across the world that evolution is fact. We also don't need to spend much time arguing with flat Earthers. Like this fool, you can just embarrass them by letting them talk.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.
> 
> Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.
> 
> Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.
> 
> Noah's Ark does not.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered this using evolution, but I can see it's not registering in your tainted brain.  What's in red is what's not registering.  Also, I presented the timeline differences between creation and evolution.  *There is no way to resolve the differences because the timelines are too vastly apart.  Creation's 6K years would be practically an invisible dot on the evolutionary timeline.*  Thus, creation scientists use the evolutionary timeline and evolution explained it as I linked. .
Click to expand...


This is where your attempt at a narrative loses me every time. 

I don't even know what you are trying to 'resolve'- either the Earth is millions of years old- or it is not. 

According to Christians it is about 6K years old.
According to science it is millions of years old. 

If you use the evolutionary time line- then you are saying that the earth is not 6K years old- but are acknowledging that it is millions of years old- AND you are acknowledging that evolution explains the diversity of life around the world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, +/- 1%.

This is an established fact. There is no debate.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
> 
> You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
> 
> Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
> 
> You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
> Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.
> 
> Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.
> 
> Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.
> 
> Noah's Ark does not.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a creation science explanation:
> "“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
> 
> It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.
> The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.
> 
> The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."
> 
> How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nothing in your explanation- or in the article you cited offers any rational explanation as to why virtually all marsupials ended up going from Ararat- to Australia- and none stayed on in Turkey- or went to Africa. 

The Bible doesn't mention any animal shepherds assigning all animals with pouches to Australia- but nowhere else. 

I have tried. 

I will leave it at where it is always left with the Christian anti-evolutionist- you have your faith- and you accept that- and not science.


----------



## forkup

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't argue
> 
> 
> 
> And who really needs to argue with that nutball, anyway? It is well known across the world that evolution is fact. We also don't need to spend much time arguing with flat Earthers. Like this fool, you can just embarrass them by letting them talk.
Click to expand...

True, I'm just interested in why people are capable of holding on to beliefs that are so demonstrably wrong. Faith is one thing. Faith against direct evidence to the contrary is amazing.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, +/- 1%.
> 
> This is an established fact. There is no debate.


It really isn't, it is only implied by data that if interpreted through the eyes of naturalism, fabricated the need for eons of time. GOD through the universe illustrated to Adam the enormity of GOD's existence and abilities. You tell me how old the universe appears and I will tell you how long GOD has been an around plus 1


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
> 
> I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell.  It was based on undisturbed layers.  Disturbed layers could not be trusted.  All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers.  Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time.  Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died.  If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism.  Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.
> 
> Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.
> 
> Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.
> 
> Noah's Ark does not.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a creation science explanation:
> "“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
> 
> It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.
> The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.
> 
> The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."
> 
> How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in your explanation- or in the article you cited offers any rational explanation as to why virtually all marsupials ended up going from Ararat- to Australia- and none stayed on in Turkey- or went to Africa.
> 
> The Bible doesn't mention any animal shepherds assigning all animals with pouches to Australia- but nowhere else.
> 
> I have tried.
> 
> I will leave it at where it is always left with the Christian anti-evolutionist- you have your faith- and you accept that- and not science.
Click to expand...


I answered your question, so again you dodge mine.  How do you explain the today's global population of 7.6 B (updated) in 200K years.  Also, how can the earth layers be chronological when it has all been disturbed?  How can it not be disturbed for billions of years?  As we agreed that plate tectonics split the supercontinent until it is like today with seven continents.

Here is the empirical and experimental evidence for disturbance:
Sedimentology: Experiments & Videos

The atheist science goes back to 1600s lol:
"The dating principles determined in the 17th century by an anatomy professor of Copenhagen University, Stenon (Molyavko et al., 1985), upon which the geological time-scale is founded should be re-examined and supplemented."

Sedimentology: Conclusions


----------



## james bond

Here's what happened due to plate tectonics.  So, how can the earth not be disturbed?  It happened fast because of young earth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> It really isn't, it is only implied by data that if interpreted through the eyes of naturalism, fabricated the need for eons of time


That's hilarious nonsense. You couldn't name any of the evidence or methods for determining the age of the Earth, if your life depended on it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Here's what happened due to plate tectonics.  So, how can the earth not be disturbed?  It happened fast because of young earth.


Actually, that has happened many times throughout Earth's history. This is a known fact. Of course you didn't know that, because you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
> 
> Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
> 
> Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.
> 
> Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.
> 
> Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.
> 
> Noah's Ark does not.
> 
> How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
> 
> Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a creation science explanation:
> "“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
> 
> It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.
> The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.
> 
> The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."
> 
> How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in your explanation- or in the article you cited offers any rational explanation as to why virtually all marsupials ended up going from Ararat- to Australia- and none stayed on in Turkey- or went to Africa.
> 
> The Bible doesn't mention any animal shepherds assigning all animals with pouches to Australia- but nowhere else.
> 
> I have tried.
> 
> I will leave it at where it is always left with the Christian anti-evolutionist- you have your faith- and you accept that- and not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question, so again you dodge mine.  How do you explain the today's global population of 7.6 B (updated) in 200K years.
Click to expand...


Because that was the rate that humans populated- balancing deaths versus births. 

How come there are few Kalahari Bushman now than there were 100 years ago?

There are roughly 90,000 of the San people alive today- Yet at one time they may have been the largest population humans on earth.

Khoisan - Wikipedia.

If the world is 6,000 years old- how come there are only 90,000 San people?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Here's what happened due to plate tectonics.  So, how can the earth not be disturbed?  It happened fast because of young earth.



You mean what happened over the course of millions of years as your own 'Creation Scientists' told you?


----------



## Syriusly

Okay as amusing as this is- trying to discuss the facts and science with a Christian anti-evolutionist is like trying to teach a pig to dance. 

Live on in ignorance.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Okay as amusing as this is- trying to discuss the facts and science with a Christian anti-evolutionist is like trying to teach a pig to dance.
> 
> Live on in ignorance.



I know about both evolution and creation science more than you.  I believed in evolution at first, but after studying creation science and the Bible and comparing it with evolution, I thought it was what happened.  I had 900+ years old ancient humans (longevity) and dinosaurs living with humans to contend with.  Those were the two hardest to see how it happened.  Where I had trouble with evolution is billions of years old earth and universe.  Radiometric dating makes too many assumptions and the atheist scientists weren't being honest about what was found in the layers and in-between layers.  Fossils have to fit within a range in the layer where they were found or else it is not accepted.  They also weren't honest about apes to humans, i.e. there were mass frauds.  They weren't honest about macroevolution.  We still do not have transitional fossils.  They weren't honest about pseudoscientific racism.  Next, most of Darwin's hypotheses were wrong.  He was only right about evolution by natural selection.  Moreover, evolution doesn't explain origins very well.  It does a good job with biology, but not so good in debunking creation science.  The stupidest thing about evolution is how the universe started from nothing (quantum mechanics).  Afterwards, the atheist scientists discovered fine tuning facts and started to propose multiverses.  That took the cake.  Furthermore, there is design and intelligence found in beauty and complexity in this world which atheist scientists can't explain. I can't believe in change over long time because the earth is/was formed rapidly.  I don't think we're all related from one common ancestor either, but there are common ancestors within species and we see their evolution, but we didn't just happen to evolve from a single-cell creature.  Creation scientists state there are no aliens and no ghosts (of dead people).  However, they do state there are spirit people like angels and demons.  Where we agree is the earth will one day become extinct.  We just don't know how except the Bible prophecy (I think gamma rays).  I think the atheist scientists favor global warming.  Just the fact that the law of entropy holds states we will all become extinct one day.  However, if creation scientists are right, then we will all die from end times of the unholy trinity -- Satan (god of the world spirit), antichrist and false prophet (latter both humans).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I know about both evolution and creation science more than you.


You know fuck all about evolution and would be laughed out of a high school science class.

And there is no such thing as creation science .

Where do these freaks come from?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about both evolution and creation science more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> You know fuck all about evolution and would be laughed out of a high school science class.
> 
> And there is no such thing as creation science .
> 
> Where do these freaks come from?
Click to expand...


Do you have chimpanzee-like hips?  lol.  I have evolved in posting here due to creation science while you still remain a chimp AF.  There is a recent article in creation science about you.

"Hips can reveal many things about fossilized organisms, especially when it comes to mammals. They can indicate the difference between species and even reveal the differences between the sexes of the same species.

Last fall, we reported on the latest research findings that showed _Homo naledi_ was less human-like and more Australopith-like. ICR concluded that the small-brained _Homo naledi_ was just another Lucy-like ape—similar to a modern chimpanzee.1

1 Clarey, T. 2017. Just What Is Homo naledi? _Acts & Facts_. 46 (12): 9."

Homo naledi had Lucy-Like Hips


----------



## james bond

Here's another article for the internet atheist types.  Bill Nye thinks earth was seeded from Mars.  What a weirdo.  He also blames humans for climate change and not sin causing death.  Bottom line is evolutionary science will not solve anything.  Not exactly true as I found one argument using evolution against GMO foods, i.e. mutation foods.

"*“You Never Shut Up About Climate Change”*
It’s no surprise the first episode, “Earth’s a Hot Mess,” dealt with climate change. Nye dealt with some of the science around climate change but, predictably, solely blamed humans for causing it. During a segment called “Bill Needs a Minute,” which is basically a rant from Nye, he railed against “climate change deniers” claiming that it’s their fault the United States isn’t a leader in fighting climate change. At the end of the episode, filmmaker Zach Braff claims Nye never shuts up about climate change, to which Nye leads the audience to respond, “We will shut up about climate change if we finally do something about the problem.”

Now there are few people who actually deny climate change entirely, but it’s not us at AiG—a fact Ken Ham has pointed out to Bill Nye before. What some scientists and others do deny are the claims that man is causing all or nearly all climate change. To claim that those who disagree with one specific interpretation of very limited data are “climate change deniers”—when it’s obvious that climates change—is untrue and does nothing to further Nye’s argument.

You can learn more about climate change in Dr. Alan White’s article “The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault!”"

The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault!

The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about both evolution and creation science more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> You know fuck all about evolution and would be laughed out of a high school science class.
> 
> And there is no such thing as creation science .
> 
> Where do these freaks come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have chimpanzee-like hips?  lol.  I have evolved in posting here due to creation science while you still remain a chimp AF.  There is a recent article in creation science about you.
> 
> "Hips can reveal many things about fossilized organisms, especially when it comes to mammals. They can indicate the difference between species and even reveal the differences between the sexes of the same species.
> 
> Last fall, we reported on the latest research findings that showed _Homo naledi_ was less human-like and more Australopith-like. ICR concluded that the small-brained _Homo naledi_ was just another Lucy-like ape—similar to a modern chimpanzee.1
> 
> 1 Clarey, T. 2017. Just What Is Homo naledi? _Acts & Facts_. 46 (12): 9."
> 
> Homo naledi had Lucy-Like Hips
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as creation science,you freak.


----------



## Syriusly

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about both evolution and creation science more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> You know fuck all about evolution and would be laughed out of a high school science class.
> 
> And there is no such thing as creation science .
> 
> Where do these freaks come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have chimpanzee-like hips?  lol.  I have evolved in posting here due to creation science while you still remain a chimp AF.  There is a recent article in creation science about you.
> 
> "Hips can reveal many things about fossilized organisms, especially when it comes to mammals. They can indicate the difference between species and even reveal the differences between the sexes of the same species.
> 
> Last fall, we reported on the latest research findings that showed _Homo naledi_ was less human-like and more Australopith-like. ICR concluded that the small-brained _Homo naledi_ was just another Lucy-like ape—similar to a modern chimpanzee.1
> 
> 1 Clarey, T. 2017. Just What Is Homo naledi? _Acts & Facts_. 46 (12): 9."
> 
> Homo naledi had Lucy-Like Hips
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as creation science,you freak.
Click to expand...


Every time he posts something from a "Creation Scientist" it tends to be something that actually refutes his young earth theory.

Which is very amusing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about both evolution and creation science more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> You know fuck all about evolution and would be laughed out of a high school science class.
> 
> And there is no such thing as creation science .
> 
> Where do these freaks come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have chimpanzee-like hips?  lol.  I have evolved in posting here due to creation science while you still remain a chimp AF.  There is a recent article in creation science about you.
> 
> "Hips can reveal many things about fossilized organisms, especially when it comes to mammals. They can indicate the difference between species and even reveal the differences between the sexes of the same species.
> 
> Last fall, we reported on the latest research findings that showed _Homo naledi_ was less human-like and more Australopith-like. ICR concluded that the small-brained _Homo naledi_ was just another Lucy-like ape—similar to a modern chimpanzee.1
> 
> 1 Clarey, T. 2017. Just What Is Homo naledi? _Acts & Facts_. 46 (12): 9."
> 
> Homo naledi had Lucy-Like Hips
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as creation science,you freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he posts something from a "Creation Scientist" it tends to be something that actually refutes his young earth theory.
> 
> Which is very amusing.
Click to expand...

I got a good laugh out of him claiming he knows more than you about evolution. He knows less than nothing about evolution.

That is not a figure of speech. He literally knows nothing factual about evolution, and the things he thinks he knows are all completely wrong. He literally has negative net knowledge about evolution . It would take a science teacher a year just to correct his wrong information and get him to a point where he has "net zero" knowledge of evolution.

In other words, it would take quite a bit of time just to educate him on evolution up to the point where his knowledge of the subject was equivalent to that of a newborn baby.

And that, my friends, is hilarious. And it is especially hilarious in the context of watching him dance and prance and preen himself in this thread.


----------



## Syriusly

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about both evolution and creation science more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> You know fuck all about evolution and would be laughed out of a high school science class.
> 
> And there is no such thing as creation science .
> 
> Where do these freaks come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have chimpanzee-like hips?  lol.  I have evolved in posting here due to creation science while you still remain a chimp AF.  There is a recent article in creation science about you.
> 
> "Hips can reveal many things about fossilized organisms, especially when it comes to mammals. They can indicate the difference between species and even reveal the differences between the sexes of the same species.
> 
> Last fall, we reported on the latest research findings that showed _Homo naledi_ was less human-like and more Australopith-like. ICR concluded that the small-brained _Homo naledi_ was just another Lucy-like ape—similar to a modern chimpanzee.1
> 
> 1 Clarey, T. 2017. Just What Is Homo naledi? _Acts & Facts_. 46 (12): 9."
> 
> Homo naledi had Lucy-Like Hips
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as creation science,you freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he posts something from a "Creation Scientist" it tends to be something that actually refutes his young earth theory.
> 
> Which is very amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got a good laugh out of him claiming he knows more than you about evolution. He knows less than nothing about evolution.
> 
> That is not a figure of speech. He literally knows nothing factual about evolution, and the things he thinks he knows are all completely wrong. He literally has negative net knowledge about evolution . It would take a science teacher a year just to correct his wrong information and get him to a point where he has "net zero" knowledge of evolution.
> 
> In other words, it would take quite a bit of time just to educate him on evolution up to the point where his knowledge of the subject was equivalent to that of a newborn baby.
> 
> And that, my friends, is hilarious. And it is especially hilarious in the context of watching him dance and prance and preen himself in this thread.
Click to expand...


I still am amused by the idea all of those marsupials scampering and hoping on a bee Line to Australia- just before the continents started flying apart 4,000 years ago.

I am thinking there must have been Angel shepherds on the route to keep all the animals going to where they were supposed to be going.

And maybe little mini-arks to get the Galapagos tortoises out to their islands.....


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know fuck all about evolution and would be laughed out of a high school science class.
> 
> And there is no such thing as creation science .
> 
> Where do these freaks come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have chimpanzee-like hips?  lol.  I have evolved in posting here due to creation science while you still remain a chimp AF.  There is a recent article in creation science about you.
> 
> "Hips can reveal many things about fossilized organisms, especially when it comes to mammals. They can indicate the difference between species and even reveal the differences between the sexes of the same species.
> 
> Last fall, we reported on the latest research findings that showed _Homo naledi_ was less human-like and more Australopith-like. ICR concluded that the small-brained _Homo naledi_ was just another Lucy-like ape—similar to a modern chimpanzee.1
> 
> 1 Clarey, T. 2017. Just What Is Homo naledi? _Acts & Facts_. 46 (12): 9."
> 
> Homo naledi had Lucy-Like Hips
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as creation science,you freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he posts something from a "Creation Scientist" it tends to be something that actually refutes his young earth theory.
> 
> Which is very amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got a good laugh out of him claiming he knows more than you about evolution. He knows less than nothing about evolution.
> 
> That is not a figure of speech. He literally knows nothing factual about evolution, and the things he thinks he knows are all completely wrong. He literally has negative net knowledge about evolution . It would take a science teacher a year just to correct his wrong information and get him to a point where he has "net zero" knowledge of evolution.
> 
> In other words, it would take quite a bit of time just to educate him on evolution up to the point where his knowledge of the subject was equivalent to that of a newborn baby.
> 
> And that, my friends, is hilarious. And it is especially hilarious in the context of watching him dance and prance and preen himself in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still am amused by the idea all of those marsupials scampering and hoping on a bee Line to Australia- just before the continents started flying apart 4,000 years ago.
> 
> I am thinking there must have been Angel shepherds on the route to keep all the animals going to where they were supposed to be going.
> 
> And maybe little mini-arks to get the Galapagos tortoises out to their islands.....
Click to expand...


We're going to find that the universe is 15.8 B years soon.  Add two more billion years.  The atheist scientists have discovered stars and planets that are older than 13.8 B already.  They need an explanation.  I think one of the first things of the James Webb telescope will be to demonstrate and suddenly we'll be older.  Does it really matter when discussing billions of years when today's living creatures register millions of years old.  They say that's in error.  I would think you would register millions of years old.  How can that be when you do not fit in any of the chronological layers?  It is erroneous.  Moreover, how did the layers stratify themselves so nicely if they built up over time?  We must've had meteor collisions, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, local/regional floods, fires and other disasters like today.  What did that do to the layers?

Now, let's look at 6K years.  That would explain the newer stuff we find in millions of years layers and why trees grew through multiple millions of years layers.  It explains living fossils.  It explains rapid evolution.  It explains carbon-14 in diamonds found in millions of years layers.  It explains why dinosaur fossils still have soft marrow.  It explains your koalas in Australia.  It explains today's population.  It explains why you have five fingers and five toes and symmetry.  It explains sexual desire.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The atheist scientists have discovered stars and planets that are older than 13.8 B already


No they haven't, freak. Damn son, you really need to stop talking about science. Forever.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists have discovered stars and planets that are older than 13.8 B already
> 
> 
> 
> No they haven't, freak. Damn son, you really need to stop talking about science. Forever.
Click to expand...


I use atheist science of +2 billion years while you use stupidity AF.  No contest there.  Creation scientists explain that it's 6K years old.  No contest there either and even a wider gap to your stupidity AF findings.  I didn't think that was possible to get worse from stupidity AF, but here we are. 

Hubble Team Breaks Cosmic Distance Record


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists have discovered stars and planets that are older than 13.8 B already
> 
> 
> 
> No they haven't, freak. Damn son, you really need to stop talking about science. Forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use atheist science of +2 billion years while you use stupidity AF.  No contest there.  Creation scientists explain that it's 6K years old.  No contest there either and even a wider gap to your stupidity AF findings.  I didn't think that was possible to get worse from stupidity AF, but here we are.
> 
> Hubble Team Breaks Cosmic Distance Record
Click to expand...

Um...hey moron...your Link's content directly contradicts yet another embarrassingly false statement by you, as it states that the observed object was 13.4 billion light years away.

Goddamn you are stupid. Look at what your embarrassing, childish religious beliefs have done to your brain .

Now go ahead numbnuts, declare victory. Meanwhile, in what the rest of us call reality, you and your creation fetish are nothing but a punchline.


----------



## ding

Votto said:


> Well?
> 
> I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?


I'm not going to read the 35 pages to see if my answer was already written, especially since I read the first page and saw what was written there.  I'm also not going to pretend I know the answer, especially since I doubt anyone knows the answer.  With that said, I think I understand your question and I think common sense would say that mutations arise en masse, probably as a response to a need in nature (a la Stephen Wolfram's theory of everything). To add to that, you can never know what something is by how it starts out, you can know what it is when it has grown into it. 

So what I am saying is that the new species bursts onto the scene all at once but it isn't obvious that it is a new species at its birth.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists have discovered stars and planets that are older than 13.8 B already
> 
> 
> 
> No they haven't, freak. Damn son, you really need to stop talking about science. Forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use atheist science of +2 billion years while you use stupidity AF.  No contest there.  Creation scientists explain that it's 6K years old.  No contest there either and even a wider gap to your stupidity AF findings.  I didn't think that was possible to get worse from stupidity AF, but here we are.
> 
> Hubble Team Breaks Cosmic Distance Record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...hey moron...your Link's content directly contradicts yet another embarrassingly false statement by you, as it states that the observed object was 13.4 billion light years away.
> 
> Goddamn you are stupid. Look at what your embarrassing, childish religious beliefs have done to your brain .
> 
> Now go ahead numbnuts, declare victory. Meanwhile, in what the rest of us call reality, you and your creation fetish are nothing but a punchline.
Click to expand...


If evolution was true, then you'd understand how we're adding 2 billion years.  Also, you wouldn't be racist.  How does one explain racism, wars and not having an answer to atheist science questions when we have evolved?  It means you haven't.

CNN.com - Study: Universe bigger, older than expected - Aug 8, 2006


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> If evolution was true, then you'd understand how we're adding 2 billion years.


That doesn't make any sense. What I think or believe or understand has zero bearing on the truth of evolution, or vice versa. Evoluion is a fact, and you are playing with yourself on a message board.


----------



## postman

james bond said:


> We're going to find that the universe is 15.8 B years soon.  Add two more billion years.  The atheist scientists have discovered stars and planets that are older than 13.8 B already.  They need an explanation.  I think one of the first things of the James Webb telescope will be to demonstrate and suddenly we'll be older..



How do they explain the evolution of stars, that have a lifespan of billions of years, and in order to create the heavy elements needed for life, have to have gone super nova.  For that to have happened in the span of only millions of years, means visible stars would be exploding every few minutes.


----------



## james bond

postman said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to find that the universe is 15.8 B years soon.  Add two more billion years.  The atheist scientists have discovered stars and planets that are older than 13.8 B already.  They need an explanation.  I think one of the first things of the James Webb telescope will be to demonstrate and suddenly we'll be older..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do they explain the evolution of stars, that have a lifespan of billions of years, and in order to create the heavy elements needed for life, have to have gone super nova.  For that to have happened in the span of only millions of years, means visible stars would be exploding every few minutes.
Click to expand...








The internet atheists do not have an answer.

For that matter, they cannot explain why spiral galaxies with their black holes in the center haven't been wound out of existence in billions of years.  Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.


Yes we can, dummy.


----------



## Syriusly

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
Click to expand...


Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
> 
> Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"
Click to expand...


Not ToE, but it's related to evolutionary thinking.  I'm not surprised of the ignorance.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
Click to expand...


No, you can't because you're a dummy.  The moon is receding at a pace too fast for a 4.5 B year old moon.

Based upon reasonable postulates, observational data and the fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place.

"The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year.






Figure 1. Past (theoretical) recession rate of the moon





Figure 2. Present recession rate of the moon

Gravity is the force that keeps our moon in orbit around the earth. In Figures 1 and 2 this is represented by line “B.” If not for the gravity of the earth and moon, the moon would simply float away from the earth into space.

A major point to remember about lunar recession is that it is not constant over long periods of time. The further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become.

In short, lunar recession is caused by tidal forces. Tidal forces are not the same thing as the gravity that keeps the moon orbiting around the earth. (However, they are _caused_ by the moon’s gravity as will be shown.) The moon does more than just the rising and receding of tides along shorelines. When combined with the rotation of the earth and its gravity, these tidal forces are what cause the moon to recede away from the earth.

As we know, the moon causes tides; these are due to the fact that the moon’s gravitational force is stronger the closer you are to it. So, the moon’s gravity pulls more strongly on the side of Earth closest to the moon, and pulls less on the opposite side. This effectively “stretches” the Earth and produces two tidal bulges. The figure illustrates how the moon is actually pulling the oceans away from the earth toward itself (point 1) and causes the earth to bulge. At the same time there is a bulge produced on the opposite side of the earth (point 3) where the earth is being pulled away from the oceans.

Since the earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulge stays slightly ahead of the moon. With the earth bulging, the moon is “pulled” by the point of gravity (point 1), produced by the bulge, since it is closer to it (line A) than the point of gravity (point 3) at the opposite side of the earth (line C). Since the moon is constantly being pulled it is constantly accelerating. Even though the earth’s gravity (point 2) is acting as a centripetal force (line B) to keep the moon in an orbital path (dark arrow), the acceleration of the moon caused by the tidal bulge at point 1 is increasing its angular momentum, therefore moving it outward (gray arrow).

Figure 1 shows what the past (theoretical) recession rate would have looked like. Being much closer in a more-distant past, the moon would have caused larger tidal bulges, creating a greater “pulling” force (point 1, line A), increasing the angular momentum; thus the moon receded at a much greater speed (as shown by the red arrows).

With the earth where it is today (Figure 2) tidal bulges are much smaller (than the theoretical past), making the “pulling” force of point 1 smaller; thus the angular momentum is much less, resulting in the present and seemingly more-constant recession rate of 4 cm per year. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the_ Roche Limit_, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it."

Lunar Recession


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
> 
> Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"
Click to expand...

He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then  tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't because you're a dummy.  The moon is receding at a pace too fast for a 4.5 B year old moon.
> 
> Based upon reasonable postulates, observational data and the fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place.
> 
> "The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 1. Past (theoretical) recession rate of the moon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 2. Present recession rate of the moon
> 
> Gravity is the force that keeps our moon in orbit around the earth. In Figures 1 and 2 this is represented by line “B.” If not for the gravity of the earth and moon, the moon would simply float away from the earth into space.
> 
> A major point to remember about lunar recession is that it is not constant over long periods of time. The further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become.
> 
> In short, lunar recession is caused by tidal forces. Tidal forces are not the same thing as the gravity that keeps the moon orbiting around the earth. (However, they are _caused_ by the moon’s gravity as will be shown.) The moon does more than just the rising and receding of tides along shorelines. When combined with the rotation of the earth and its gravity, these tidal forces are what cause the moon to recede away from the earth.
> 
> As we know, the moon causes tides; these are due to the fact that the moon’s gravitational force is stronger the closer you are to it. So, the moon’s gravity pulls more strongly on the side of Earth closest to the moon, and pulls less on the opposite side. This effectively “stretches” the Earth and produces two tidal bulges. The figure illustrates how the moon is actually pulling the oceans away from the earth toward itself (point 1) and causes the earth to bulge. At the same time there is a bulge produced on the opposite side of the earth (point 3) where the earth is being pulled away from the oceans.
> 
> Since the earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulge stays slightly ahead of the moon. With the earth bulging, the moon is “pulled” by the point of gravity (point 1), produced by the bulge, since it is closer to it (line A) than the point of gravity (point 3) at the opposite side of the earth (line C). Since the moon is constantly being pulled it is constantly accelerating. Even though the earth’s gravity (point 2) is acting as a centripetal force (line B) to keep the moon in an orbital path (dark arrow), the acceleration of the moon caused by the tidal bulge at point 1 is increasing its angular momentum, therefore moving it outward (gray arrow).
> 
> Figure 1 shows what the past (theoretical) recession rate would have looked like. Being much closer in a more-distant past, the moon would have caused larger tidal bulges, creating a greater “pulling” force (point 1, line A), increasing the angular momentum; thus the moon receded at a much greater speed (as shown by the red arrows).
> 
> With the earth where it is today (Figure 2) tidal bulges are much smaller (than the theoretical past), making the “pulling” force of point 1 smaller; thus the angular momentum is much less, resulting in the present and seemingly more-constant recession rate of 4 cm per year. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the_ Roche Limit_, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it."
> 
> Lunar Recession
Click to expand...

You understand none of that and could not summarize any of it, if your life depended on it


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
> 
> Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then  tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.
Click to expand...


The charlatans are the atheist scientists who assume practically everything.  We also learned from the lunar recession article that creation scientists state that earth's magnetic field is getting less and will be gone by around 3000.  Atheist scientists aren't worried because of the dynamo BS.

ETA:  The moon lost its magnetic field and I would think its dynamo would work the same way.  Except it didn't have a dynamo.

Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster 

What Would Happen If Earth’s Magnetic Field Disappeared? | Apex Magnets Blog


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
> 
> Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then  tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The charlatans are the atheist scientists who assume practically everything.  We also learned from the lunar recession article that creation scientists state that earth's magnetic field is getting less and will be gone by around 3000.  Atheist scientists aren't worried because of the dynamo BS.
> 
> ETA:  The moon lost its magnetic field and I would think its dynamo would work the same way.  Except it didn't have a dynamo.
> 
> Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster
> 
> What Would Happen If Earth’s Magnetic Field Disappeared? | Apex Magnets Blog
Click to expand...


LOL still cracks me up every time you mention 'Creation Scientists' and I think about how each time you cited a person you claimed to be a 'Creation Scientist' - your citation refuted something you had said.


----------



## james bond

Both Mars and the moon have lost their magnetic fields, and so will the earth.  It means that asteroids hitting the earth and more radiation.  It's evidence the creation scientists are right over the atheist ones.  Atheists are wrong, again ha ha.

What Happened to Mars' Atmosphere?

Mystery of Moon's Lost Magnetism Solved?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can they explain how the moon moves away from the earth and should have disappeared in billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
> 
> Its like he throws a pot of science spaghetti at the wall and everything that sticks he points to and says- "Look- that disproves evolution!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's a charlatan. His arguments whittle Away to general arguments that " science cannot be trusted, because it is sometimes wrong and doesn't explain everything"...then, of course, the fraud then  tries to cite science and scientists to make his case. It's embarrassing and absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The charlatans are the atheist scientists who assume practically everything.  We also learned from the lunar recession article that creation scientists state that earth's magnetic field is getting less and will be gone by around 3000.  Atheist scientists aren't worried because of the dynamo BS.
> 
> ETA:  The moon lost its magnetic field and I would think its dynamo would work the same way.  Except it didn't have a dynamo.
> 
> Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster
> 
> What Would Happen If Earth’s Magnetic Field Disappeared? | Apex Magnets Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL still cracks me up every time you mention 'Creation Scientists' and I think about how each time you cited a person you claimed to be a 'Creation Scientist' - your citation refuted something you had said.
Click to expand...


Not really.  The Bible is the inspired Word of God so it's complete, authoritative and inerrant.  The conversations here has led me to find out about more evolutionary vs creation differences.  It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.  I never knew until our conversations that Satan was referred to as "god of the world" and "prince of the power of the air" in the Bible.  Is it just coincidence that atheists refer to God as god (lower case)?

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4

"2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."  Ephesians 2:1-3

Atheist science today says the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker, but hypothesize it's due to getting ready to reverse polarity.  This is not true.  I mean earth's polarity does reverse itself, but it's done rapidly and not slow.  The weakening of the earth's magnetic field is a mystery for atheist scientists who believe in old, long earth and earth's core being a dynamo.  Creation scientists think it's due to decay after creation and that the earth's magnetic field is not permanent.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> It's evidence the creation scientists are right over the atheist ones.  Atheists are wrong, again ha ha.



LOL- that is as honest as saying that Puppy scientists are right over atheist scientists.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence the creation scientists are right over the atheist ones.  Atheists are wrong, again ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- that is as honest as saying that Puppy scientists are right over atheist scientists.
Click to expand...


I don't make up these things and just "happened" to find out about no magnetic field on Mars nor the moon.  It means that we should not colonize there.  No one argues against going to Mars or the moon because of no magnetic field.  How can the earth be a dynamo when those other space bodies weren't?  It's interesting that many people believe in the earth's dynamo and that earth's magnetic field is permanent. Have these scientists and people been tricked?






I can't say all of atheist science is due to the prince of the power of the air, but clearly he's lied and tricked many people in evolutionary origins and evo thinking.  And now we know that he's got the moon and Mars.  No person should go there if there isn't any magnetic field.  Yet, people think they can overcome the lack of water and atmosphere.

While God wants people to be believers, Satan doesn't want you to know he exists.  "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist."  Verbal Kint.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Look at this freak...prancing and dancing and claiming "victory" for imaginary "creation science". Yet, all of the actual published science contradicts everything he claims, evolution is still considered fact, and nobody is producing any "creation science".

This, kids, is what religion can do to your brain.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Look at this freak...prancing and dancing and claiming "victory" for imaginary "creation science". Yet, all of the actual published science contradicts everything he claims, evolution is still considered fact, and nobody is producing any "creation science".
> 
> This, kids, is what religion can do to your brain.



Give it up.  After page 1, your mutated pea brain exploded. 

Page 1 stated mutations such as seedless watermelon do not help the watermelon as they become sterile.  You can't evolve if you're sterile ha ha.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Page 1 stated mutations such as seedless watermelon do not help the watermelon as they become sterile.


You were wrong about how we develop seedless fruit on page one, you have been wrong about it for the entire thread, and you are wrong about it now.  You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## MisterBeale

I have read many many pages of this thread.

It is an insult to put it in the religious sub-forum, but it is equally an insult for those who hold science in high regard to keep it in the science sub-forum.

It should be moved to general discussion or politics.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.


Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old.  How old do you believe it is?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old.  How old do you believe it is?
Click to expand...

No, really....spare yourself....


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, really....spare yourself....


I was only trying to spare you.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old.  How old do you believe it is?
Click to expand...


Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old?  Science text books change every year.  So who's to say these guys are right now?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Page 1 stated mutations such as seedless watermelon do not help the watermelon as they become sterile.
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong about how we develop seedless fruit on page one, you have been wrong about it for the entire thread, and you are wrong about it now.  You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


I'm not even on page 1 of this thread, so you're wrong again fool.  While you looked stupie AF with this answer ha ha.



Votto said:


> if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?



>>FFI:  Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line  decreases, as a general rule.  Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human"..  100,000 years?  Again, kids might _usually_ live.  1 million years?  Probably not so much.

While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.<<

One can't even travel back in time.  Only forward .


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old.  How old do you believe it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old?  Science text books change every year.  So who's to say these guys are right now?
Click to expand...

Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers.  I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth.  Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.

I also note you failed to answer my question.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old.  How old do you believe it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old?  Science text books change every year.  So who's to say these guys are right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers.  I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth.  Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.
> 
> I also note you failed to answer my question.
Click to expand...


Such a snotty attitude.  Is it because you know science?  I didn't hear any answers of how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old, so it's not something you can readily explain.  A scientist could, but not an internet atheist like @FortFunIndiana.  And just who are "they" anyway?  Who came up with 4.5 B years old?  Hint:  It's not Billy Nye nor Degrasse.

My answer to your question at one time was the same as what science stated as 4.5 B yrs old for the Earth and 13.7 B years for the universe because I learned about evolution myself through reading.  The ToE didn't really apply to what I was learning anyway.  It only mattered if you took biology, geology, paleontolgy and zoology in college.  Around the 80s, no one thought evolution had to do with atheism.  Who gave a flying f*ck about those weirdos anyway?  Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa.

I talked with older adults and they were taught that the universe was eternal.  And sure enough I found the steady state theory.  I should have included that one after 6,000 years.  I guess the earth was eternal, too.  Then I became Christian in 2012 and started reading about creation science and the Bible.  Around 2008, and especially 2011, I was already criticizing evolution as there really wasn't any definitive transitional fossils and I could not think of any example of macroevolution.  The only thing ToE had going for it was natural selection, so I believed that and just bought the old earth and universe.  Yet, the radiometric dating bothered me in that they got different ages for similar items.  It didn't make sense to me to discard ones that didn't fit the timeline.  Afterwards, the general or soft science articles in the news kept repeating the earth was 4.5 B yrs old and universe was 13.7 B yrs old, so much that it started to bother me.  If we all knew it was so old and it was fact, then why keep telling us?  Today, the media likes to point out how asteroids will be whizzing by so "close" to the earth and they'll usually give the 4.5 B yrs old earth in those articles.  What are they trying to sell us?  Asteroids aren't any threat at all.  The only thing I can think of is they want us to be leery of the disaster and give us a reason to nuke some large meteor or possible asteroid in far space.  But I digress.

Eventually, I started to read and listen to what creation scientists were saying.  They had many prominent scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, father of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Wegener, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal and Johannes Gutenberg and so on.  Thus, I ended up comparing both and thought the creation science was more likely.  It does not mean intelligent design, although there is intelligence behind the design, but a young earth, a 6,000 yr old Earth.

That's another stupid thing today's atheist scientists can't get over.  They cannot admit to something they discover has a design, especially intelligence behind the design.  That's just stupid.  It's not the same as an ID argument.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old.  How old do you believe it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old?  Science text books change every year.  So who's to say these guys are right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers.  I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth.  Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.
> 
> I also note you failed to answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a snotty attitude.  Is it because you know science?  I didn't hear any answers of how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old, so it's not something you can readily explain.  A scientist could, but not an internet atheist like @FortFunIndiana.  And just who are "they" anyway?  Who came up with 4.5 B years old?  Hint:  It's not Billy Nye nor Degrasse.
> 
> My answer to your question at one time was the same as what science stated as 4.5 B yrs old for the Earth and 13.7 B years for the universe because I learned about evolution myself through reading.  The ToE didn't really apply to what I was learning anyway.  It only mattered if you took biology, geology, paleontolgy and zoology in college.  Around the 80s, no one thought evolution had to do with atheism.  Who gave a flying f*ck about those weirdos anyway?  Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa.
> 
> I talked with older adults and they were taught that the universe was eternal.  And sure enough I found the steady state theory.  I should have included that one after 6,000 years.  I guess the earth was eternal, too.  Then I became Christian in 2012 and started reading about creation science and the Bible.  Around 2008, and especially 2011, I was already criticizing evolution as there really wasn't any definitive transitional fossils and I could not think of any example of macroevolution.  The only thing ToE had going for it was natural selection, so I believed that and just bought the old earth and universe.  Yet, the radiometric dating bothered me in that they got different ages for similar items.  It didn't make sense to me to discard ones that didn't fit the timeline.  Afterwards, the general or soft science articles in the news kept repeating the earth was 4.5 B yrs old and universe was 13.7 B yrs old, so much that it started to bother me.  If we all knew it was so old and it was fact, then why keep telling us?  Today, the media likes to point out how asteroids will be whizzing by so "close" to the earth and they'll usually give the 4.5 B yrs old earth in those articles.  What are they trying to sell us?  Asteroids aren't any threat at all.  The only thing I can think of is they want us to be leery of the disaster and give us a reason to nuke some large meteor or possible asteroid in far space.  But I digress.
> 
> Eventually, I started to read and listen to what creation scientists were saying.  They had many prominent scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, father of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Wegener, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal and Johannes Gutenberg and so on.  Thus, I ended up comparing both and thought the creation science was more likely.  It does not mean intelligent design, although there is intelligence behind the design, but a young earth, a 6,000 yr old Earth.
> 
> That's another stupid thing today's atheist scientists can't get over.  They cannot admit to something they discover has a design, especially intelligence behind the design.  That's just stupid.  It's not the same as an ID argument.
Click to expand...

The beauty of science is that anyone with the time and inclination can learn exactly how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old.  That is a fundamental difference between science and religion, in religion "truth" is revealed and must be accepted on faith whereas science is learned and can be learned by anyone.

If you can say "Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa", you really don't understand evolution.  Until you learn why I say this you should not attempt to evaluate the ToE.

If you want to understand science you might read what science has learned in 100+ years since your list of prominent scientists lived.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old.  How old do you believe it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old?  Science text books change every year.  So who's to say these guys are right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old?  I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers.  I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth.  Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.
> 
> I also note you failed to answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a snotty attitude.  Is it because you know science?  I didn't hear any answers of how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old, so it's not something you can readily explain.  A scientist could, but not an internet atheist like @FortFunIndiana.  And just who are "they" anyway?  Who came up with 4.5 B years old?  Hint:  It's not Billy Nye nor Degrasse.
> 
> My answer to your question at one time was the same as what science stated as 4.5 B yrs old for the Earth and 13.7 B years for the universe because I learned about evolution myself through reading.  The ToE didn't really apply to what I was learning anyway.  It only mattered if you took biology, geology, paleontolgy and zoology in college.  Around the 80s, no one thought evolution had to do with atheism.  Who gave a flying f*ck about those weirdos anyway?  Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa.
> 
> I talked with older adults and they were taught that the universe was eternal.  And sure enough I found the steady state theory.  I should have included that one after 6,000 years.  I guess the earth was eternal, too.  Then I became Christian in 2012 and started reading about creation science and the Bible.  Around 2008, and especially 2011, I was already criticizing evolution as there really wasn't any definitive transitional fossils and I could not think of any example of macroevolution.  The only thing ToE had going for it was natural selection, so I believed that and just bought the old earth and universe.  Yet, the radiometric dating bothered me in that they got different ages for similar items.  It didn't make sense to me to discard ones that didn't fit the timeline.  Afterwards, the general or soft science articles in the news kept repeating the earth was 4.5 B yrs old and universe was 13.7 B yrs old, so much that it started to bother me.  If we all knew it was so old and it was fact, then why keep telling us?  Today, the media likes to point out how asteroids will be whizzing by so "close" to the earth and they'll usually give the 4.5 B yrs old earth in those articles.  What are they trying to sell us?  Asteroids aren't any threat at all.  The only thing I can think of is they want us to be leery of the disaster and give us a reason to nuke some large meteor or possible asteroid in far space.  But I digress.
> 
> Eventually, I started to read and listen to what creation scientists were saying.  They had many prominent scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, father of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Wegener, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal and Johannes Gutenberg and so on.  Thus, I ended up comparing both and thought the creation science was more likely.  It does not mean intelligent design, although there is intelligence behind the design, but a young earth, a 6,000 yr old Earth.
> 
> That's another stupid thing today's atheist scientists can't get over.  They cannot admit to something they discover has a design, especially intelligence behind the design.  That's just stupid.  It's not the same as an ID argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The beauty of science is that anyone with the time and inclination can learn exactly how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old.  That is a fundamental difference between science and religion, in religion "truth" is revealed and must be accepted on faith whereas science is learned and can be learned by anyone.
> 
> If you can say "Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa", you really don't understand evolution.  Until you learn why I say this you should not attempt to evaluate the ToE.
> 
> If you want to understand science you might read what science has learned in 100+ years since your list of prominent scientists lived.
Click to expand...


I didn't say evolution, but evolutionary thinking.  ToE has to do with biology, but paleontology is close.

So, really what you're admitting is 4.5 B is just another number along with the other estimates and "methods" scientists in the past have use to age things including the earth.  That's the conclusion I came to.  What it means is we have to look elsewhere for more evidence.

ETA:  If someone can readily explain how they came up with 4.5 B year age of the earth, then more power to them.  Also, they should know the name of the  person who came up with it.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I didn't say evolution, but evolutionary thinking.  ToE has to do with biology, but paleontology is close.


I guess I misunderstood you.  Maybe you could explain the difference?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> So, really what you're admitting is 4.5 B is just another number along with the other estimates and "methods" scientists in the past have use to age things including the earth.  That's the conclusion I came to.  What it means is we have to look elsewhere for more evidence.
> 
> ETA:  If someone can readily explain how they came up with 4.5 B year age of the earth, then more power to them.  Also, they should know the name of the  person who came up with it.


Next time you go to the doctor tell them you want leeches instead of antibiotics since that is what medicine used at one time.

Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by *Ernest Rutherford.*


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, really what you're admitting is 4.5 B is just another number along with the other estimates and "methods" scientists in the past have use to age things including the earth.  That's the conclusion I came to.  What it means is we have to look elsewhere for more evidence.
> 
> ETA:  If someone can readily explain how they came up with 4.5 B year age of the earth, then more power to them.  Also, they should know the name of the  person who came up with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Next time you go to the doctor tell them you want leeches instead of antibiotics since that is what medicine used at one time.
> 
> Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by *Ernest Rutherford.*
Click to expand...


>>Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by *Ernest Rutherford.*<<

Wrong answer.  Bzzz.  Rutherford came up with 2.2 B years using uranium dating.  So that's another method and age for the earth that scientists came up with.  The guy who came up with 4.5 B years is Clair Patterson who used uranium-lead dating to get 4.5 B yrs old.  I only mention this because people in general do not know how they came up with 4.5 B years old earth.  While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED.  They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.

"*Estimate of age of Earth*
When Patterson returned to the University of Chicago to work under his research adviser Harrison Brown, Brown, knowing about Patterson's experience with mass spec, teamed him up with George Tilton to do geological aging on zircons. Zircons are extremely useful for dating since, when they are formed, they possess tiny imperfections of uranium inside them but no lead. Therefore, if any lead is present in the zircon, it must come from the decay of uranium. This process is known as U-Pb dating. The job of the team was to measure the concentration and isotopic compositions of the elements inside the zircon. Tilton was to measure the uranium and Patterson, the amount and type of lead.[4] The goal for Patterson was to figure out the composition of the primordial lead in the Earth. In doing so, it would be possible to figure out the age of the solar system and, in turn, the Earth from using the same techniques on meteorites.

As Patterson and Tilton began their work in 1948, Patterson quickly became aware that his lead samples were being contaminated. They knew the age of the igneous rock from which the zircon came, and Tilton’s uranium measurements aligned with what should be in a zircon at that particular age, but Patterson’s data always was skewed with too much lead.[4] After six years the team did publish a paper on methods of determining the ages of zircon crystals and Patterson did achieve his Ph.D., but they were no closer in determining the age of the Earth.

Brown was able to receive a grant from the United States Atomic Energy Commission to continue work on dating the Earth, but more importantly, to commission a new mass spectrometer in Pasadena, California at Caltech. In 1953, Brown brought Patterson along with him to Caltech, where Patterson was able to build his own lab from scratch. In it he secured all points of entry for air and other contaminants. Patterson also acid cleaned all apparatuses and even distilled all of his chemicals shipped to him. In essence, he created one of the first clean rooms ever, in order to prevent lead contamination of his data.[4] He then was able to finish his work with the Canyon Diablo meteorite. He used the mass spectrometer at the Argonne National Laboratory on isolated iron-meteorite lead to collect data on the abundance of lead isotopes. With the new data, in 1956 he published “Age of Meteorites and the Earth”, the first paper containing the true age of the solar system’s accretion, which was 4.550Gy ± 70My.[5][6][7][8]"

Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia

However, what's wrong with this scenario?  Patterson was able to clean his room from other contaminants.  In fact, he may created one of the first clean rooms ever.  If one does measurement on the actual earth, then there are contaminants everywhere from the earth's environment that have affected the fossils or rock.  In order to use radiometric dating, one has to know the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.  Thus, one cannot always accurately measure using radiometric dating.  And that's what we get.  We get a wide range of answers.  You can radiometric date something you know from present day and get millions of years for it.  Again, one must know the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.  Many scientists think they know, but they do not.  What they do is they guess and this is where the evolutionary bias comes in.  They only accept the radiometric dating that falls within their preconceived notions.  They even aged the moon rocks that were brought back and they had the same problems.

Here's an example of a young earth in fossils.  One can't do it with rocks, only organic matter.  Creation scientists have found carbon-14 remaining in dinosaur fossils.  They have used carbon-14 dating to come up with young dinosaurs from thousands of years ago.  However, this does not fit what evolution states that they lived about a 100 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago, so it's disregarded as the fossils being contaminated.  Today, scientists think they know what was original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened, so no one can present an argument that is different.

.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say evolution, but evolutionary thinking.  ToE has to do with biology, but paleontology is close.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I misunderstood you.  Maybe you could explain the difference?
Click to expand...


I thought you meant the pygmy tribe.  Here it is if that's what you meant:
"Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE. Will Durant, in his _The Story of Civilization_, explained that certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports. The Vedas of Ceylon admitted only the possibility that deities might exist but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way by the tribes.[2]"

History of atheism - Wikipedia

If you meant evolutionary thinking, then here is its history in relation to ToE.
History of Evolutionary Thought


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED.  They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.


Interesting idea that there are _*others *_that know better than the experts.  Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.

As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy.  If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> History of atheism - Wikipedia


Evolution does not require one to be an atheist so this more appropriate in the Religion and Ethics forum.  Plenty of theists accept that their God works through evolution.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED.  They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting idea that there are _*others *_that know better than the experts.  Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.
> 
> As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy.  If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.
Click to expand...


Radiometric dating and carbon-14 dating are both scientific methods to measure age, but there are assumptions that are made for using either.  We can use carbon-14 dating on organic fossils and diamonds and get a younger age.  It's wrong to state only one is scientific method.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED.  They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting idea that there are _*others *_that know better than the experts.  Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.
> 
> As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy.  If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating and carbon-14 dating are both scientific methods to measure age, but there are assumptions that are made for using either.  We can use carbon-14 dating on organic fossils and diamonds and get a younger age.  It's wrong to state only one is scientific method.
Click to expand...

Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED.  They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting idea that there are _*others *_that know better than the experts.  Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.
> 
> As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy.  If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating and carbon-14 dating are both scientific methods to measure age, but there are assumptions that are made for using either.  We can use carbon-14 dating on organic fossils and diamonds and get a younger age.  It's wrong to state only one is scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby.  Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby.  Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .
Click to expand...

Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby.  Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.
Click to expand...


Okay, I take it back.  One point for you.  If radiocarbon dating was discovered first, then we may be talking about a younger earth.  However, Charles Lyell changed all that.


----------



## deanrd

*According to science, how does a new species develop?*

Anyone who doesn't know by now doesn't want to know.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby.  Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.
Click to expand...


Besides, you were wrong about scientific method.  They're both scientific methods.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby.  Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides, you were wrong about scientific method.  They're both scientific methods.
Click to expand...

So, let's review:


Evolution and the age of the Earth: Both known facts.

Religious nutball still touching himself on a message board: check.

Number of "creation science" papers published: 0.

Amount of education or experience in these fields by this religious nutball: none.

Difference made by little tantrums thrown by this religious nutball: none.

Number of credible scientists disputing or even attempting to dispute evolution or the age of the Earth: 0.


----------



## deanrd

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby.  Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides, you were wrong about scientific method.  They're both scientific methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's review:
> 
> 
> Evolution and the age of the Earth: Both known facts.
> 
> Religious nutball still touching himself on a message board: check.
> 
> Number of "creation science" papers published: 0.
> 
> Amount of education or experience in these fields by this religious nutball: none.
> 
> Difference made by little tantrums thrown by this religious nutball: none.
> 
> Number of credible scientists disputing or even attempting to dispute evolution or the age of the Earth: 0.
Click to expand...

I was going to say you are wrong.

Then I noticed you used the word "credible".

Never mind.

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon-14 dating *is *radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby.  Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides, you were wrong about scientific method.  They're both scientific methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's review:
> 
> 
> Evolution and the age of the Earth: Both known facts.
> 
> Religious nutball still touching himself on a message board: check.
> 
> Number of "creation science" papers published: 0.
> 
> Amount of education or experience in these fields by this religious nutball: none.
> 
> Difference made by little tantrums thrown by this religious nutball: none.
> 
> Number of credible scientists disputing or even attempting to dispute evolution or the age of the Earth: 0.
Click to expand...

He's all yours, I'm defeated.


----------

