Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...What evidence are you speaking of ---
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.I will not try to embarass you
I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.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.Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.It happened in one day --- day 6.ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
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.
And you sound like an ignorant slob, but I keep it to myself.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.I will not try to embarass you
I believe that lighter skinned humans enjoyed a cooler, shadier climate better. And the blondes intermarried and became inbred. They are still human kind.Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
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.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..
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
I wasn't the person citing Wegener as a 'Creation Scientist'.
I am just quoting him to show your claims about him are debunked.
. 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.
And you sound like an ignorant slob, but I keep it to myself.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.I will not try to embarass you
I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.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.Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.It happened in one day --- day 6.ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?
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 entire fossil record, the age of earth, the age of the earliest life, the correct predictions yielded by all of our best scientific theories...What evidence are you speaking of ---
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.
.
Black folks who came from Africa and lived generations in Scandinavia became blonde.
I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.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.Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.It happened in one day --- day 6.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?
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 don't see this as evolution at all. I see it as hybridization.
, Lord Kelvin, another creation scientist, estimated the earth to be 20 million to 400 million years old by ASSUMING)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.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..
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
I wasn't the person citing Wegener as a 'Creation Scientist'.
I am just quoting him to show your claims about him are debunked.
I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.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.Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.It happened in one day --- day 6.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?
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..
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
I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.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.Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.It happened in one day --- day 6.
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..
No- you just made that claim in post #402.
Nothing was ever debunked.
AKA a species.
- They are not sterile
- They reproduce with their own kind
- Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.
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
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.
I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.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.Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.
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..
No- you just made that claim in post #402.
Nothing was ever debunked.
AKA a species.
- They are not sterile
- They reproduce with their own kind
- Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
