Creationists

[Hollie]

To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.

You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.

The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.

An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.

Nope, i'm shooting holes in yours.

You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.

That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.

That makes no sense. “Early man”, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: perfection, thus your claim that “it took time for mutations to do their job” is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you’re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that “it took time for mutations to do their job”. The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to “design”.

The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That’s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale requires that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.

The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical science. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.

 

[Hollie]

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?

Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.

Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?

Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg

I thought it was interesting that the author of your fundie linked website offered this gem:

"A lot has changed in the last 35 years or so, especially in the electronics industry. Let’s compare the changes in evolutionary theory with the changes in electrical engineering theory over that period."

So, we're to believe that there are relevant parallels between biological evolution and the electronics industry.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they insist that the products of nature must have been designed. They have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and false metaphors that appeal only to the gullible and religiously addled.

 

[UltimateReality]

You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.

Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.

Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before.

Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science.

You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.

The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that ID’ers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals to metaphysics as the core of their argument. They’re left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural “designer” god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.

Wow, you guys are a little slow. I was calling NP your name because of his lame response so you wasted your cut and paste on this one. You can go back to sleep now.

 

[UltimateReality]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

As usual, you're left to stumble and sputter. Your description of evolution so narrowly defined is typical creationist babble, totally absent an understanding of the process.

Ad hollymen response. No argument presented.

 

[UltimateReality]

You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.

Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.

No, you didn't post anything of that sort. You just think you did. If you had, you'd be a nobel prize winner and everyone on this earth would be a believer. It is merely you're presupposition that convinces you, in your circularity, that's you're right. At best, you made a fallacy of inductive logic. You think that because DNA is a "digital code" which it isn't, it has to be created because the ONLY OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLE we have of an existing code, is made by US, and hence was designed. That's not evidence whatsoever. That's inductive reasoning and is simply insufficient to even make a valid, let alone sound argument.

It's the same logic Darwin used so you can't have it both ways.

"However, by the 19th Century, a number of natural historians were beginning to think of evolutionary change as an explanation for patterns observed in nature. The following ideas were part of the intellectual climate of Darwin's time.

No one knew how old the earth was, but geologists were beginning to make estimates that the earth was considerably older than explained by biblical creation. Geologists were learning more about strata, or layers formed by successive periods of the deposition of sediments. This suggested a time sequence, with younger strata overlying older strata.
A concept called uniformitarianism, due largely to the influential geologist Charles Lyell, undertook to decipher earth history under the working hypothesis that present conditions and processes are the key to the past, by investigating ongoing, observable processes such as erosion and the deposition of sediments.

 

[UltimateReality]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking where all the steps in between went, since, according to Natural Selection, each successive step between the common ancestor and man and ape should have resulted in a more "fit" organism. If they were more fit, why did the apes survive and they didn't. I'm saying NS is a farce based on ambiguous definition of fitness that can be molded anyway to suit your pathetic theory. And unlike REAL SCIENCE, has no present day, observable experimental evidence to back up the fitness claim.

 

[UltimateReality]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure

This is a blatant lie. Just because I think the TOE is a scientifically baseless theory doesn't mean the only other scientific explanation involves God. It is really YOU who believes if you don't force the evidence to fit, you might have to entertain the idea of God, which is stupid, because you really have the option of doing REAL SCIENCE and making predictions about the past based on REAL EXPERIMENTS, and not speculation and false pretenses.

 

[UltimateReality]

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.

You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.

The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.

An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.

Incestuous breeding is well documented in the Bible. So what is your point?

 

[UltimateReality]

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?

So since you theory is such a fact, please point me to the fossil of the last-known, non-homo sapien, human ancestor.

 

[UltimateReality]

How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas

Your reading comprehension sucks. I have presented no such ideas. It is your personal bias that dreamed up I was saying one species wipes out another one. Here are a couple that you missed: weather change, food shortage, natural disaster, geographical changes in predatory species.

What about reading comprehension? I listed literally all but one of these possible explanations for extinction. Seems you missed that part.

What exactly, is this:

"If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? "

First off, This questionable, as it sits, is unanswerable. Apes and humans have a common ancestor, so one did not descend from the other. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding on what evolution actually is.

Moving on. Am I missing something? Would you mind clarifying exactly what you are asking, if you insist I got it wrong? You ask outright, "why is the less fit ape still around?" This to me, means exactly what you are asking, which I adequately answered. Then it seems you are wondering about transitional forms, so you are asking two different questions. I answered the first one, unless I am simply getting this all wrong. as for the second, there are plenty of transitional forms. In fact, all fossils are transitional forms. We have heaps of humanoid and hominid fossils that display a nice continuum of time over the last 10 million years. It is a complicated history with a lot of dead ends, but we came out victorious in the end. Please, help me out here, because your question is a little non-sensical.

please point me to the fossil of the last known non-homo sapien homo sapien ancestor.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Why would apes evolve into humans? I don't even understand how your last sentence is relevant to reality, and I already did go throw a scenario where a species would split into two, and requires that neither die out, necessarily. Your question, along with Ultimatereality's question, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Therefore, how you can claim that evolution is false when you don't even understand what it is. This is evidence that you have not disproved evolution, but merely, a straw man that you built, unknowingly. This provides further evidence for my claim that creationists are unable to look at evidence honestly, because if they did and found that it made sense, their entire worldview would crumble, resulting in depression, identity confusion, suicidally... there is a lot at stake. Hence, they can not even be honest with themselves. How unbelievably sad. Truth is smacking you in the face, and you continually are obligated, by your own beliefs, to bat them away, because you have nothing to replace those beliefs. I don't blame you. Beliefs are everything to humans. We die for them, because when they are threatened so fundamentally, we feel like we are dying, since they are fundamental to our basic sense of identity. It is for these psychological reasons, that this discussion will never converge. No agreement will ever be reached. It will go on ad infinitum.

Are you listening to your own lecture? All the points you make can be applied to your materialist worldview. And in case you missed the generic reference, I was using Ape as a generic term to refer to the knuckle dragging hominids you claim are human cousins or ancestors or divergent species or whatever term you are make believing up these days without scientific evidence. I am well aware of the studies comparing Chimpanzee DNA to humans. So please provide me references to the plethora of fossils of THE Last Universal Ancestor of Baboon's, Humans, Chimpanzees, and Gorilla's.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why would apes evolve into humans?

I don't know. How does a microbe become a microbiologist?

 

[UltimateReality]

You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.

The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.

An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.

Nope, i'm shooting holes in yours.

You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.

That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.

That makes no sense. “Early man”, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: perfection, thus your claim that “it took time for mutations to do their job” is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you’re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that “it took time for mutations to do their job”. The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to “design”.

The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That’s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale requires that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.

The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical science. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.

You are the clueless one.

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]

Wilma!!!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples

Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Why would apes evolve into humans? I don't even understand how your last sentence is relevant to reality, and I already did go throw a scenario where a species would split into two, and requires that neither die out, necessarily. Your question, along with Ultimatereality's question, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Therefore, how you can claim that evolution is false when you don't even understand what it is. This is evidence that you have not disproved evolution, but merely, a straw man that you built, unknowingly. This provides further evidence for my claim that creationists are unable to look at evidence honestly, because if they did and found that it made sense, their entire worldview would crumble, resulting in depression, identity confusion, suicidally... there is a lot at stake. Hence, they can not even be honest with themselves. How unbelievably sad. Truth is smacking you in the face, and you continually are obligated, by your own beliefs, to bat them away, because you have nothing to replace those beliefs. I don't blame you. Beliefs are everything to humans. We die for them, because when they are threatened so fundamentally, we feel like we are dying, since they are fundamental to our basic sense of identity. It is for these psychological reasons, that this discussion will never converge. No agreement will ever be reached. It will go on ad infinitum.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJT2vJMsYc4]Take Your Stinkin' Paws Off Me You Damn Dirty Ape! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

Intelligent design...offers a host of promising questions for research. One wonders how much further along science would be today if ID scientists had the power to direct research about "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA" instead of letting the Darwin power structure tell everyone, "there's nothing to see here." One wonders, further, how much pain and suffering might have been avoided.

Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - Evolution News & Views

 

[UltimateReality]

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%–3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]–[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]–[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002837

 

[UltimateReality]

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.

So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...

"There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150–200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."

 

[newpolitics]

Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.

Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before.

Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science.

You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.

The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that ID’ers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals to metaphysics as the core of their argument. They’re left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural “designer” god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.

Wow, you guys are a little slow. I was calling NP your name because of his lame response so you wasted your cut and paste on this one. You can go back to sleep now.

The fact that Hollie and I both responded to our claims of proving creationism in a similar manner, and our assessment of the fundies is also somewhat similar, means that (1) we both actually understand evolution, (2) you do not, (3) we both can see WHY you refuse to understand the subject matter. Therefore, it follows that our responses will be somewhat similar.

 

[Hollie]

Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples

Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.

Science doesn't perform experimentation?

That's a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of science.