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.
I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,butYou have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.No hollie.
The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.
bullshit! Women have the same amount of facial hair as men it's just lighter and thinner .so tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call pe neo-darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [expelled]
as i understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate. Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.
The reason the half hybrids i get the impression ywc expects aren't found would be because they are not part of evolutionary theory. Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.
You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils. Here's a site, aptly named :
(a few) transitional fossils\
there may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist. As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.
not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.
Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for hollymen]
6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth(cue buzzer) thanks for playing. Since you have no evidence to the contary.how do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?
We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.
My money is on new species.
Besides you're making a a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.
well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
total bullshit ...you're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.to much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
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.
can you rationalize any harder? fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.
About PLoS Genetics
PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).
PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).
Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.
As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
can you rationalize any harder? fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
show some dignity.
really I think you went looking for dirt and it got thrown back in your face.can you rationalize any harder? fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
show some dignity.
Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or presenting a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.
really I think you went looking for dirt and it got thrown back in your face.can you rationalize any harder? fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
show some dignity.
Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or presenting a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.
when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
what did you expect, a conversion?
I'm watching the thread and getting more than a little creeped out with your every post being about me.really I think you went looking for dirt and it got thrown back in your face.Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or presenting a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.
when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
what did you expect, a conversion?
Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
I'm watching the thread and getting more than a little creeped out with your every post being about me.really I think you went looking for dirt and it got thrown back in your face.
when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
what did you expect, a conversion?
Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
You're now floating conspiracy theories while wringing your hands in abject confusion about why I don't respond to your vulgarities.
You need help little boy.
I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,butYou have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.
The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.
as always YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations (see above)
1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
THE REALITY IS YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth(cue buzzer) thanks for playing. Since you have no evidence to the contary.
My money is on new species.
Besides you're making a a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.
well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
total bullshit ...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.
You have no evidence of god doing any such thing.
can you rationalize any harder? fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
show some dignity.
Your assessment is naive. The theories you post are taken from creationist websites. As we have seen repeatedly, these theories are not theories at all but "quotes" that have been modified, altered and parsed of relevant portions of the commentary.I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,butThe bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.
as always YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations (see above)
1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
THE REALITY IS YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earthwell my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
Your assessment is naive. The theories you post are taken from creationist websites. As we have seen repeatedly, these theories are not theories at all but "quotes" that have been modified, altered and parsed of relevant portions of the commentary.I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,but
as always YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations (see above)
1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
THE REALITY IS YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
In connection with a number of your recent "quotes", I spent not an insignificant amount of time researching what you posted only to find that the "quotes" were falsely attributed or simply manufactured to suit the goal of promoting fundamentalist Christian religious views. You have created the circumstances where so much of your "quoted" material is lies and falsehoods, why should anyone be bothered? No one has unlimited time to spend here and it becomes frustrating to be required to spend time not addressing issues but correcting falsified quotes. Other than not, I have little interest in being met with links to Harun Yahya as a valid source.
6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth
You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
There is overwhelming evidence as to the age of the earth. You know the number and it is not 6,000 to 10,000 years. That clashes with your religious view which is something you cannot come to terms with. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence refutes the YEC religious agenda.
Truth supplants fiction. It's that simple.
No, that's based on an overwhelming weight of evidence from many different scientific disciplines.You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
There is overwhelming evidence as to the age of the earth. You know the number and it is not 6,000 to 10,000 years. That clashes with your religious view which is something you cannot come to terms with. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence refutes the YEC religious agenda.
Truth supplants fiction. It's that simple.
Based on presuppositions,assumptions and speculation try again.
Your assessment is naive. The theories you post are taken from creationist websites. As we have seen repeatedly, these theories are not theories at all but "quotes" that have been modified, altered and parsed of relevant portions of the commentary.Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
In connection with a number of your recent "quotes", I spent not an insignificant amount of time researching what you posted only to find that the "quotes" were falsely attributed or simply manufactured to suit the goal of promoting fundamentalist Christian religious views. You have created the circumstances where so much of your "quoted" material is lies and falsehoods, why should anyone be bothered? No one has unlimited time to spend here and it becomes frustrating to be required to spend time not addressing issues but correcting falsified quotes. Other than not, I have little interest in being met with links to Harun Yahya as a valid source.
It is similar maybe,but I have formed my own views. A creationist believes 6,000 years I believe between 6,000 and 12,000 years. These views are based from the bible because I don't trust dating methods used by science.
Well if you like we can discuss the current mutation rate and see how long your theory would have actually taken.
I have already given the observed reason why genetics is a problem for the theory. I have also pointed out that many organisms fossils were dated back millions of years ago are the same today. They showed no change at all,if evolution is always happening and all organisms experience mutations why did the evolution process stop ?
Most of my views are based in logic and observed evidence and that is the problem you are having because you know that is what is observed. Logic is more credible in science over imagination.
