Creationists

[Dragon]

Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".

Exactly what I said.

We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.

But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent.

Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.

The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".

Exactly what I said.

We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.

But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent.

Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.

The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.

Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.

And let's look at the reality of this engine.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.

Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Dragon]

Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

Mutation plus natural selection.

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".

Exactly what I said.

We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.

But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent.

Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.

The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.

You do realize how incredibly stupid you sound, right?

"We're a lot closer to knowing".

LOL! That's certainly...."scientific".

Still waiting for the evidence.

Oh, wait, there isn't any. You just THINK you're closer.

Too funny.

 

[koshergrl]

Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

Mutation plus natural selection.

Straight out of the mouths of 6th graders.
Thanks for that stunning and ridiculous explanation.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not what I said.

Believe me, I have no idea what your stances are, they change daily.

One day you're a full blown science denier.

The next day you admit to parts of evolution being fact.

The next day you completely buy into microevolution.

Then the 4th day you're back to saying Satan is behind science.

You're avoiding my questions again.

I have never denied real science.

I have never denied micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations.

You didn't ask a question. And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind. Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.

Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

Mutation plus natural selection.

Straight out of the mouths of 6th graders.
Thanks for that stunning and ridiculous explanation.

No offense, but you science deniers sound like you have a worse idea of what science is and says than the average 6th grader.


So that's why you'll hear those type of explanations.

 

[Dragon]

You do realize how incredibly stupid you sound, right?

Yes, but that's an indictment of your ears, not my voice. As I said, you have no idea how science works or what its working assumptions are, and you've demonstrated that yet again.

"We're a lot closer to knowing".

LOL! That's certainly...."scientific".

Indeed it is. As I said before, science never claims 100% certainty, because there can be no 100% certainty, ever, about anything. And that's just as true about creationist ideas as it is about evolution.

But there is actually evidence in favor of evolution, while there is NO evidence AT ALL for creation. So, while neither set of ideas can be claimed with 100% certainty, evolution can be claimed with a very high degree of probability, while the probability that creation as described in the Bible is true is far, far under 1%.

So yes -- we are a lot closer to knowing than you are.

 

[koshergrl]

"
Understanding the diversification of phenotypes through time—“descent with modification”—has been the focus of evolutionary biology for 150 years. If, contrary to expectations, similarity evolves in unrelated taxa, researchers are guided to uncover the genetic and developmental mechanisms responsible. Similar phenotypes may be retained from common ancestry (homology), but a phylogenetic context may instead reveal that they are independently derived, due to convergence or parallel evolution, or less likely, that they experienced reversal. Such examples of homoplasy present opportunities to discover the foundations of morphological traits. A common underlying mechanism may exist, and components may have been redeployed in a way that produces the “same” phenotype. New, robust phylogenetic hypotheses and molecular, genomic, and developmental techniques enable integrated exploration of the mechanisms by which similarity arises. "

So much for the *almost* inerrancy of your evidence.
Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution

 

[Dragon]

So much for the *almost* inerrancy of your evidence.
Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution

You honestly think you have proven anything with that? Your ignorance of science is simply staggering.

As I've said a couple of times, what strikes me about creationists is not faith but rather their LACK of faith. Real faith would not need to insist on absurd ideas like magical creation to preserve belief in God. The absurdity of creationist ideas will never lead to their abandonment no matter how well this is pointed out, as along as creationists continue to fear that if they accept evolution they will lose God. That is the real, at-root irrationality of the entire belief-system.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief, I knew you were ignorant but I realize now how incredibly stupid you really are.

Your idiotic claims that your belief is somehow more valid than mine show you for the silly nitwit you are..and it's backed up by your continuing insistence that you have the science behind you...and yet you pooh-pooh the science when it doesn't jibe with your own beliefs.

Typical of someone who depends upon logical fallacy.

 

[Dragon]

[snip pointless personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]

Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.

 

[koshergrl]

And yet again, surprise surprise, you can only speak to that which hasn't been said...you won't speak to the actual argument.

go figure.

 

[koshergrl]

So much for the *almost* inerrancy of your evidence.
Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution

Likewise, *snip* nothing except logical fallacy and self-important aggrandizment.

Nothing of substance.

As I've said before, and will say again..always look to what the progressive loons are complaining about, and you will find the problem with their own argument and style.

 

[LOki]

I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.


Bible and science provide faith and truth.

Not lies and propaganda.

I'll see you in the other thread.

I accept your intellectual surrender.

Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.

Then if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

[snip pointless personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]

Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.

Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.

13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism

9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism

 

[Youwerecreated]

Believe me, I have no idea what your stances are, they change daily.

One day you're a full blown science denier.

The next day you admit to parts of evolution being fact.

The next day you completely buy into microevolution.

Then the 4th day you're back to saying Satan is behind science.

You're avoiding my questions again.

I have never denied real science.

I have never denied micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations.

You didn't ask a question. And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind. Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.

Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?

No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to macro-evolution.

The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?

 

[LOki]

[snip pointless personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]

Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.

Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.

13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism

9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I accept your intellectual surrender.

Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.

Then if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?

There is zero evidence that non-life can produce life,zero evidence.