Creationists

[UltimateReality]

being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance

Omigosh!! Can I just say OMIGOSH again? You just proved my famous quote. And you can't even spell mathematical!!!

“To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”

Those symbols are most certainly used in trigonometry ALL THE TIME. You want me to post up a hundred or so links? Now who has egg on their face??

Greek Alphabet (PRIME)

While the alpha and omega symbols are used in various mathematics, from what I can discern they have no set meaning.

So while, yes, you are correct that they are often mathematical symbols, they certainly do not indicate god.

I would imagine that god would need to be better defined before any kind of math would point to god's existence. Perhaps there could be something that points to a designer for life, but even then that wouldn't necessarily be god, and certainly wouldn't have to be god as you believe in it. I think the Christian concept of god is too outside the realm of human experience, too far beyond what we can see or know, to be explained through science. Perhaps that will change at some future point, but for now, IMO, it is the case.

I was actually just being clever when I responded Alpha and Omega, because these words are used to describe God in the Bible and they are used in math. They are commonly accepted mathematical symbols and have been so since the time of the Greeks. I never said they indicated God but Daws looks pretty foolish trying to call me ignorant when his own lack of exposure to math is evident by his post. That is all.

 

[Hollie]

It's funny. Folks are so locked into their worldview, they won't even take the time to view an alternate viewpoint. I think they just rather argue.

What's funny, (sad) is that you are forever consigned to youtube videos as a means to promote and defend your irrationally based world of the supernatural. The problem that befuddles you is that your arguments originate from charlatans and snake oil salesmen representing the ICR and such other fundie creationist sites. Both they and you typify the science loathing variety of fundies who seek at every turn to vilify the science they are terrified of. The reason for this is a deep concern that because the process of evolution is so overwhelmingly confirmed by theory and evidence and impossible to refute that most supernauralists have a justified fear that their entire worldview of the supernatural is irreperably dismantled. That is unquestionably why fundie creationists hold such a visceral hatred for science in general and evolutionary science in particular.

In the realm of the rational, natural worldview, it is the scientific community which is experimenting, exploring, and unfolding new discoveries. I feel a need to remind you that the worldview of the supernaturalist, (your worldview), is replete with claims of supernatural objects and events that exist nowhere in the natural world but exist exclusively in the supernatural / irrational world. If we are going to come to terms with providing explanations for the experiences and the events that occur within our wholly natural world, where do you think we should look for understanding: science or irrationality?

So let me get this straight, what your saying is there are no peer reviewed ID papers? And you cut and paste other peoples quotes from the internet?

There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.

 

[UltimateReality]

The KT extinction

Cretaceous

Heard of the Chicxulub Crater? It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.

There went the dinosaurs. Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.

Heard of CHAINSAWS? Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING. We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.

When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done. You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming. Nice try, Benedict.

Do you people always post the first article that disputes what I say ? dear little ol me.

Far more likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity, not outer space. Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out.

As a result of these and other problems, some evolutionary scientists do not accept the impact theory.


GEOLOGIC TABLE
The geologic table summarizes the earth’s rock layers. According to secular scientists, they record millions of years of history, but the Bible indicates that the layers were laid over the past 6,000 years.
THE K-T BOUNDARY
This visible boundary between two layers of strata (Cretaceous and Tertiary) is thought to be the result of a mass extinction.




Other Theories

If the impact theory is not correct, then how is the disappearance of dinosaurs to be explained? Some scientists have suggested that the world’s climate suddenly became too cold. Others have suggested that their numbers declined as dinosaurs ate each other. A few theories have been wacky, such as the suggestion that dinosaurs died out from a plague of indigestion.

There is another possibility, ignored in secular science journals. While the impact theory admits the possibility of a global catastrophe resulting from an asteroid or comet, the Bible describes a very different global catastrophe that could have caused the “K-T extinction event”—the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6–9.

The Bible says that “all fountains of the great deep were broken up” (Genesis 7:11). The breakup of the earth’s crust would certainly have caused volcanoes on an unprecedented scale during the Flood, explaining the iridium in the K-T boundary. The bulk of the world’s fossils would have formed as a result of this catastrophe.

While pairs of every kind of dinosaur survived the Flood on board the Ark, it appears that their population never grew large in the new world. Like so many other kinds of animals, their small populations finally went extinct for a variety of reasons typical of many animals, including climate changes, diseases, decrease in food supply, and humans.

Starting with the Bible, it is easy to make sense of the mass kill of dinosaurs found in the fossil record.

Paul Taylor graduated with his B.Sc. in chemistry from Nottingham University and his master’s in science education from Cardiff University. Paul taught science for 17 years in a state school but is now a proficient writer and speaker for Answers in Genesis–UK.

Dinosaur Killer - Answers in Genesis

Read the whole article they address your theory that is just one of the theories idiot.

Oh sweet heyzeus H. Christ - an Ark'ist.

Is that statement meant to be derogatory against Hispanics?

 

[UltimateReality]

What's funny, (sad) is that you are forever consigned to youtube videos as a means to promote and defend your irrationally based world of the supernatural. The problem that befuddles you is that your arguments originate from charlatans and snake oil salesmen representing the ICR and such other fundie creationist sites. Both they and you typify the science loathing variety of fundies who seek at every turn to vilify the science they are terrified of. The reason for this is a deep concern that because the process of evolution is so overwhelmingly confirmed by theory and evidence and impossible to refute that most supernauralists have a justified fear that their entire worldview of the supernatural is irreperably dismantled. That is unquestionably why fundie creationists hold such a visceral hatred for science in general and evolutionary science in particular.

In the realm of the rational, natural worldview, it is the scientific community which is experimenting, exploring, and unfolding new discoveries. I feel a need to remind you that the worldview of the supernaturalist, (your worldview), is replete with claims of supernatural objects and events that exist nowhere in the natural world but exist exclusively in the supernatural / irrational world. If we are going to come to terms with providing explanations for the experiences and the events that occur within our wholly natural world, where do you think we should look for understanding: science or irrationality?

So let me get this straight, what your saying is there are no peer reviewed ID papers? And you cut and paste other peoples quotes from the internet?

There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.

Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.

 

[Hollie]

Do you people always post the first article that disputes what I say ? dear little ol me.

Far more likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity, not outer space. Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out.

As a result of these and other problems, some evolutionary scientists do not accept the impact theory.


GEOLOGIC TABLE
The geologic table summarizes the earth’s rock layers. According to secular scientists, they record millions of years of history, but the Bible indicates that the layers were laid over the past 6,000 years.
THE K-T BOUNDARY
This visible boundary between two layers of strata (Cretaceous and Tertiary) is thought to be the result of a mass extinction.




Other Theories

If the impact theory is not correct, then how is the disappearance of dinosaurs to be explained? Some scientists have suggested that the world’s climate suddenly became too cold. Others have suggested that their numbers declined as dinosaurs ate each other. A few theories have been wacky, such as the suggestion that dinosaurs died out from a plague of indigestion.

There is another possibility, ignored in secular science journals. While the impact theory admits the possibility of a global catastrophe resulting from an asteroid or comet, the Bible describes a very different global catastrophe that could have caused the “K-T extinction event”—the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6–9.

The Bible says that “all fountains of the great deep were broken up” (Genesis 7:11). The breakup of the earth’s crust would certainly have caused volcanoes on an unprecedented scale during the Flood, explaining the iridium in the K-T boundary. The bulk of the world’s fossils would have formed as a result of this catastrophe.

While pairs of every kind of dinosaur survived the Flood on board the Ark, it appears that their population never grew large in the new world. Like so many other kinds of animals, their small populations finally went extinct for a variety of reasons typical of many animals, including climate changes, diseases, decrease in food supply, and humans.

Starting with the Bible, it is easy to make sense of the mass kill of dinosaurs found in the fossil record.

Paul Taylor graduated with his B.Sc. in chemistry from Nottingham University and his master’s in science education from Cardiff University. Paul taught science for 17 years in a state school but is now a proficient writer and speaker for Answers in Genesis–UK.

Dinosaur Killer - Answers in Genesis

Read the whole article they address your theory that is just one of the theories idiot.

Oh sweet heyzeus H. Christ - an Ark'ist.

Is that statement meant to be derogatory against Hispanics?

I just find it difficult to imagine anyone accepting the literal Noah - global flood - pairs of animals, silliness.

But I'm sure you have a handy youtube video....

 

[Hollie]

So let me get this straight, what your saying is there are no peer reviewed ID papers? And you cut and paste other peoples quotes from the internet?

There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.

Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.

You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.

That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.

Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed.

So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?

 

[UltimateReality]

There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.

Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.

You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.

That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.

Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed.

So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?

I find it shocking that evolutionists can be so confident when they can't even come up with a mechanism for self-replication of dna in the cell.

[Do you guys like my Hollie technique? Quote someone's post and then post a response that has absolutely no relevance to the quote.]

 

[UltimateReality]

"Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?

Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.

Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent

 

[Hollie]

Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.

You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.

That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.

Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed.

So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?

I find it shocking that evolutionists can be so confident when they can't even come up with a mechanism for self-replication of dna in the cell.

Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that Evilutionists don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.

Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".

I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.

[Do you guys like my Hollie technique? Quote someone's post and then post a response that has absolutely no relevance to the quote.]

Are you losing track of what you have posted?

I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.

 

[Hollie]

"Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?

Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.

Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent

From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:

Uncommon Descent holds that…

Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.

 

[Hollie]

"Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?

Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.

Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger

#140: Ann Gauger

Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute’s 2005 petition “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. She’s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed “scientists”.

A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed “leaky growth” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.

 

[koshergrl]

"Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?

Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.

Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent

From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:

Uncommon Descent holds that…

Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.

Examples, please. Cite and source.

 

[Hollie]

"Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?

Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.

Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent

From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:

Uncommon Descent holds that…

Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.

Examples, please. Cite and source.

Start here:

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

 

[Youwerecreated]

From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:

As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.

Examples, please. Cite and source.

Start here:

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.

Let's see how rediculous your theory is.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?



Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality


Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.

 

[UltimateReality]

You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.

That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.

Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed.

So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?

Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that Evilutionists don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.

Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".

I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.

[Do you guys like my Hollie technique? Quote someone's post and then post a response that has absolutely no relevance to the quote.]

Are you losing track of what you have posted?

I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.

Or maybe I could just copy what someone else said on another forum and pass it off as my own.

 

[Hollie]

Examples, please. Cite and source.

Start here:

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.

It's a shame, isn't it?

We have a multitude of court cases wherein judges have consistently held that creationism is not science and does not belong in a school syllabus.

Fortunately, we have a legal system that protects me and others from science loathing, hate promoting fundie creationists.

Thanks, Isis.

Let's see how rediculous your theory is.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?



Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality


Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.

Read this: The Evilution of Chicken Lips

you'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.com

 

[Hollie]

Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that Evilutionists don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.

Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".

I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.


Are you losing track of what you have posted?

I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.

Or maybe I could just copy what someone else said on another forum and pass it off as my own.

You frequently do, of course.

Like others, I've posted on other boards. I just don't have a habit of posting goofy youtube videos in place of understanding the subject matter I comment on.

 

[Hollie]

Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that Evilutionists don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.

Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".

I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.


Are you losing track of what you have posted?

I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.

So... it must be a marvelous thing to promote the falsehoods and idiocy of Ann Gauger as a source for creationist nonsense when she is a card carrying member of the American Loons.

Chuckle.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Start here:

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.

It's a shame, isn't it?

We have a multitude of court cases wherein judges have consistently held that creationism is not science and does not belong in a school syllabus.

Fortunately, we have a legal system that protects me and others from science loathing, hate promoting fundie creationists.

Thanks, Isis.

Let's see how rediculous your theory is.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?



Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality


Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.

Read this: The Evilution of Chicken Lips

you'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.com

What these questions show is that the evolutionist are so busy looking for a mechanism and erasing the certainty of the agent/God, hoping for a natural process to be the source for all life. These questions show the impossibility of life just evolving that it needed a designer.

I posted similar questions of my own in another thread and I got the same kind of response the unwillingness of your side to admit it is highly unlikely for life to just pop into existence through a natural, unguided,natural process,that life and this great universe was most certainly designed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Or maybe I could just copy what someone else said on another forum and pass it off as my own.

You frequently do, of course.

Like others, I've posted on other boards. I just don't have a habit of posting goofy youtube videos in place of understanding the subject matter I comment on.

You are ignoring the questions put to you for a reason,what is that reason ?