Creationists

[daws101]

Come on daws i'm waiting for your explanation.

Talk about making crap up ?

hey dick head I'm under no contract to you I'll answer when I choose to.
if you're bored go slap the salami

 

[daws101]

I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.

YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
lapping the shit up.

your side are already trying to create a theory on how they could have survived instead of just admitting their dating methods must be wrong.

Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside

another lie from the desperate.

why is everything you say accusatory?
adjusting when new fact is discovered is a major component of science
unlike your fantasy where everything must be constant.
it must be an easy way to keep the lies striaght.
again there is no must in science either shit happens or it doesn't

 

[Hollie]

the fact of evolution.

For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.

the only semi original thing you've posted is.....ah...um...lets see.....nothing....

Well lets see you put a thought together of your own concerning the questions you were asked. You are gonna have to do it on your own because science has no explanation for it.

And what questions were those?

 

[Hollie]

I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.

YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
lapping the shit up.

She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.

What a shame that you're reduced to inventing lies to promote an utterly absurd claim.

Your behavior typifies so much of the frantic, christian fundamentalist agenda. Honesty and integrity is thown out the window in pursuit of pressing a Dark Ages mentality.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your comments are a typical waste of time.

Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.

You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.

That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.

That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.

You are a broken record but atleast the broken say's something.

No need to get pissy. I just find it interesting that both of the fundies share a maturity level equal to that of 12 year pre-pubescent girls.

It's also interesting that you don't even try to refute comments that would require you to actually do something more than cut and paste.

Huran Yahwan is my hero, Hawly.

 

[UltimateReality]

the fact of evolution.

For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success — as opposed to using it merely as a blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as “just-so stories?

More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that “the precise meaning of ‘fitness’ has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact — or perhaps because of the fact — that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.”[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.

Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain — namely, the organism’s fitness — cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.

In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery — a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as “shocking” revelation, supposedly stands on a par with Copernicus’s heliocentric proposal — rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.

Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.

 

[Hollie]

Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.

You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.

That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.

Clueless.

I’m afraid that for so many fundies, Christianity has reversed course since the enlightenment.
Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. There’s a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals – they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They don’t promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there.

 

[Hollie]

For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success — as opposed to using it merely as a blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as “just-so stories?

More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that “the precise meaning of ‘fitness’ has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact — or perhaps because of the fact — that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.”[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.

Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain — namely, the organism’s fitness — cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.

In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery — a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as “shocking” revelation, supposedly stands on a par with Copernicus’s heliocentric proposal — rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.

Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.

I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.

Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.

Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.

That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.

Clueless.

I’m afraid that for so many fundies, Christianity has reversed course since the enlightenment.
Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. There’s a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals – they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They don’t promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there.

Let go of your hate and you will find peace.

 

[UltimateReality]

For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success — as opposed to using it merely as a blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as “just-so stories?

More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that “the precise meaning of ‘fitness’ has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact — or perhaps because of the fact — that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.”[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.

Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain — namely, the organism’s fitness — cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.

In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery — a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as “shocking” revelation, supposedly stands on a par with Copernicus’s heliocentric proposal — rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.

Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.

I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.

Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.

Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew.

Nice try. You NEVER addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?

 

[Hollie]

Clueless.

I’m afraid that for so many fundies, Christianity has reversed course since the enlightenment.
Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. There’s a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals – they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They don’t promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there.

Let go of your hate and you will find peace.

Clueless.

I had every expectation you would be unable to address my comments.

 

[Hollie]

If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success — as opposed to using it merely as a blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as “just-so stories?

More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that “the precise meaning of ‘fitness’ has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact — or perhaps because of the fact — that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.”[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.

Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain — namely, the organism’s fitness — cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.

In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery — a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as “shocking” revelation, supposedly stands on a par with Copernicus’s heliocentric proposal — rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.

Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.

I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.

Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.

Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew.

Nice try. You NEVER addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?

It certainly was addressed.

It's not surprising that you're unable to confront the fact of evolution and an ancient universe. While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

the only one here in denial is you.

this is a true statement " Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?"
but you reasoning behind it is erroneous...you've already falsely concluded that god did it.
you also contradicted yourself and undermined your speculation by using the term "hundreds of million of years?"

new politics admitted to nothing !
he again was stating fact: "Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions."- NP post#7117
Either you are too brain dead to know the difference or intentionally misrepresenting.
if it's the first then it's excuable, if it's the second you are the obsessive cock knocking slap dick arrogant, no integrity pinhead you've shown yourself to be.


as to the Mitochondrial Clock ,I ve already given you my answer:"as I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.

Your sources are not worried about it, There is a math formula that say's they should be.

Quit trying to regurgitate NP no answer. Then explain the conditions they were found in that made it possible for these things to not be degraded in that length of time ?

a formula based on what?
NP'S ANSWER WAS THE CORRECT ONE ! as always your bigotry precludes any answer except your own.

ever heard of micro climate? that's the best explaintion I can give
it's preserved "iceman" for better than 3000 years.

We are talking 68 million years not 3,000 years that which is within the biblical time line.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
lapping the shit up.

She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.

misquoting again!
she said (not "admitted" you stupid fuck) that they find none because other palentolgist were not looking in the right way...
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
there is no should in science just is or is not...should infers intent and there is none.

In what you just posted genius,she admits no one would think these blood cells could survive millions of years. The text books say the say the same thing.

Let me show you circular reasoning at it's finest. She automatically concluded the textbooks were wrong. They can survive millions of years .She based that off because the dating of the dinosaur.

That dinosaur is not as old as the dating method claims that is actually why they are still there. If you cut off oxygen they would deteriorate over time. Not near the time she is claiming. If the dead carcass is exposed to oxygen after the organism dies it wil also deteriorate. Dead carcasses are exposed to oxygen because rocks and debris which surround the carcass contain oxygen.

No way no how these bloodcells could have survived 68 million years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Come on daws i'm waiting for your explanation.

Talk about making crap up ?

hey dick head I'm under no contract to you I'll answer when I choose to.
if you're bored go slap the salami

I know i hit you with tough questions but questions that need to be answered so your theory can still fit but it doesn't.

Resort to childish insults when confronted with truth

 

[Youwerecreated]

the only semi original thing you've posted is.....ah...um...lets see.....nothing....

Well lets see you put a thought together of your own concerning the questions you were asked. You are gonna have to do it on your own because science has no explanation for it.

And what questions were those?

All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
lapping the shit up.

She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.

What a shame that you're reduced to inventing lies to promote an utterly absurd claim.

Your behavior typifies so much of the frantic, christian fundamentalist agenda. Honesty and integrity is thown out the window in pursuit of pressing a Dark Ages mentality.

You and Daws both possess reading comp problems.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.