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.
On the contrary, it is you who has been spamming this thread with your silly gargantuan fonts.Gargantuan fonts, fundie.
I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.
I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to evade questions about your educational background all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.
Are you happy now, cheeseslice?
Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
of life?I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob.Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?
What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"
Ah, I see. Your propensity for being a creepy stalker is not your fault.On the contrary, it is you who has been spamming this thread with your silly gargantuan fonts.I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to evade questions about your educational background all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.
Are you happy now, cheeseslice?
Oh you poor dear. You're the troll here, continually spamming the same phrases over and over. The large font just keeps reminding everyone that I have REQUIRED you to do one of two options: NEVER make any comments about any poster's educational background, OR provide details of your educational background.
It is YOU who CHOOSE to continue the large fonts with your failure to comply.
Both of the Christian Taliban are having a difficult time understanding evolutionary theory.I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob.Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?
What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"
C'mon, spit it out. What are you trying to say. C'mon, you can do it.
Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob.Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?
What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"
C'mon, spit it out. What are you trying to say. C'mon, you can do it.
what you consider is meaningless and erroneous ,in other words you don't have a fucking clue..you have no evidence of brainwashing by the federal or state or government or the public school system.Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.
So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.
on the other hand your belief system relies on indoctrination, coercion, fear and willful ignorance to fill it's ranks .
these statements :They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
("I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak".ywc) are from a rational pov clear evidence of brain washing and a cult mentality..
my personal fav is the courts bullshit..
It's not hard to tell the difference from the brainwashed from the ones that actually know the theory and believe it.
I would consider you and hollie as one of the brainwashed. You have taken your limited knowledge of the theory as the gospel because of what you were taught in grade school when you were young and what you have read online.
If you fully understood the real problems for the theory that both myself and UR has pointed out to you,you would be a little more open minded and less arrogant.
all ready have! btw your answer is another non sequitur!Ur is again lying to avoid the fact that he and Harun Yahya spew the same shit..So your taking Harun Yahya's classes too? Astonishing you and Hollie would subscribe to the same online degree program.
Can you refute creationism ?
facts like that have never impressed YWC or UR, They're more fantasy oriented ,like the Noah or Ezekiel myths.Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
could it be because they're 98% the same.Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
Oh and you can answer UR's question as well.
This has been addressed many times before but you still don't understand. Humans and primates shared a common ancestor but split onto different evolutionary paths. It is therefore not surprising that we would share similarities in DNA structure.Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
Oh and you can a
nswer UR's question as well.
If his mouth is moving or his fingers are typing, he's lying.could it be because they're 98% the same.Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
Oh and you can answer UR's question as well.
again wyc's reading problem rears it's ugly head ...
apes are not our ancestors because they're NOT DEAD....They are however or closest living relatives....you have no evidence to prove otherwise .
if you say you do you're lying ...
yeah ..but he's lying for god ....If his mouth is moving or his fingers are typing, he's lying.could it be because they're 98% the same.If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
Oh and you can answer UR's question as well.
again wyc's reading problem rears it's ugly head ...
apes are not our ancestors because they're NOT DEAD....They are however or closest living relatives....you have no evidence to prove otherwise .
if you say you do you're lying ...
And I answer again that there is nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with the actual theory of evolution.Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.
If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
Well, you just got one of several. What's your point now?This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
Your denial of reality does not actually make your alternative--MAGIC!--any more compelling.You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
Evolution is a FACT.Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.
"Creation science" is not science.Lie #2. The majority of evolutionary biologists enter into "experiments" with the preconceived notion that evolution has to be true. This almost always influences the outcome. Data that does not support their conclusions is assumed to be wrong and many times thrown out.Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does.
Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.
Correction:Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the DEFINITION of fitness.
Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid. DEFINITIONS are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!
A THEORY is something else entirely.
"FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.
I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a DEFINITION or a THEORY. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.
Fitness is NOT A THEORY. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.
There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."
This is consistent with the DEFINITION of "fitness."
This also is consistent with the DEFINITION of "fitness."
You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.
Bethell is just fatuously arguing that DEFINITION are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of DEFINITION for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.
You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.
Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.
And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ... MAGIC!
I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.
Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.
This is consistent with the DEFINITION of fitness.
I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.
Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?
If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.
If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.
No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."
So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.
Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to PROVE that their imaginary superfriends are real.
"Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).No.
The human eyball is not explained by fitness.
Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?
I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.
Yes to both.
Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!
Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?
Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.
But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.
Nonsense.
Nope. Not even in principle.
Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.
If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.
"Correction:Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.
Evolution is a FACT.Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.
There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.
"Creation science" is not science.
Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.
