Creationists

[LOki]

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

Last chance.

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.

Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.

Your refusal of my request will make patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Furthermore, such continued (and intellectually disingenuous) refusals will be taken as prima facie evidence that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.

I predict, as I have so successfully before, that you will not. You are the Prince of Turds; a shining credit to the intellectual dishonesty of every superstitious retard who shares your patently invalid beliefs.

Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.

You had your last chance. So it's just as before, I accept your intellectual surrender. Game - Set - Match; you lose.

And your bonus prize is: Your unambiguous self-affirmation that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you; and that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.

 

[koshergrl]

The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Oh, well, if DRAGON says so, it must be so.

More evidence of the idiocy of pseudo intellectuals who poo-pooh their betters.

No it's that science says it, Dragon is just repeating what has already proven.



Idiocy is when people deny scientific facts that have been proven in a lab, which is what we're seeing on display in this thread from the fundamentalist science-hating crowd.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.

No, no it doesn't. But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.

Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.

Yes it does

I imagine a man in a straitjacket laughing at the voices in his head.




Continue to deny something that you know nothing about (evolution). You don't even do a good job of pretending to know what evolution is.

 

[koshergrl]

No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.

It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.

 

[LOki]

The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.

All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.

 

[daws101]

So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe? Do u think that the perfection in the universe all the way from a dying star creating a blackhole and thus beginning a new galaxy down to e. coli symbiotically living in you at this very moment just happens by chance? That there is no force that drove the evolution of the universe to this point u think its basically just a big mistake? Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...

which one of us is that comment directed at?

 

[daws101]

What do you not understand about "you are arguing against a point that was never made"?

Fucking moron.

so much for christian empathy

 

[Dr.Drock]

What do you not understand about "you are arguing against a point that was never made"?

Fucking moron.

so much for christian empathy

Yeah, she certainly couldn't give a shit less about Jesus's Golden Rule.



She thinks she only has to apply it to ppl who agree with her, then if you disagree with her, she sides with how Satan thinks you should treat people lol.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.

It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.

That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying. You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.

Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven? Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!

Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.

 

[FurthurBB]

No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.



Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.



This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?

Logical fallacy.

Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.

Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.

So the parallel between them is a false parallel.

Uh oh you just caught them, now they have to explain how chimps and humans could breed and produce offspring.

they wouldn't and cannot.

 

[FurthurBB]

No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.



Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.



This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?

Logical fallacy.

Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.

Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.

So the parallel between them is a false parallel.

Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.

wow, sometimes your level of understanding is unbelievable.

 

[FurthurBB]

Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.

Evolutionist hated it when neanderthals were declared human.

lol! this is just nonsense.

 

[FurthurBB]

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.

Well, again, modification with descent. How many times do you have to ask?

 

[FurthurBB]

Oh well, then.

As I said.

You didn't say much.....

You talk of theories and evidence but you never go into details that is what your side does.

I believe none of you know the theory well enough to argue for it or you're afraid we are gonna poke serious holes in your theory.

if you want to learn about the theories, go back to school, no one here is getting paid to teach you.

 

[daws101]

There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.

I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.

BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
belief only proves belief nothing more.

Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.

Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?

Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?

Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?

How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?

first you have to prove what intelligence is did it come about due to naturally occurring conditions and billions of years of evolution? inventions are man made and after the fact, they are a byproduct of human existence.
science has shown that everything is caused by chemical reactions.
can you prove that intelligence is anything more than that?
don't forget: Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[1] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, we call probability.[2] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur.

The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.

your insistence that an intelligent force is behind existence is based on faith, nothing more.
IMO that faith is a way of filling in the unknown.

 

[FurthurBB]

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

For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much), the answer is yes. Unless, of course, you insert an "only" before the first "living" in that sentence.

Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?

When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?

No, and neither. The amount of information in the genetic code of a purebred animal is exactly the same as in that of a mixed-breed, neither more nor less.

Now, here's one for you. When plant or animal stock is bred for certain desired characteristics, this bears a resemblance to what mechanism described in the theory of evolution?

Dammit that is not correct. Pure breeds have less variation and you are trying to breed the variation out. When thinking about all the polymorphisms possible in a mixed breed dog, you could say that there is more information because mixed breeds will have more heterozygous locus whereas pure breeds will be homozygous for most alleles and it could be construed as less information.

 

[koshergrl]

The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.

All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.

What the hell are you yammering about? My contention is that you have different standards for yourself v. the faithful, and lie about what the evidence shows.

That's proven every time you open your stupid mouth. There's really nothing else to bring.

 

[FurthurBB]

Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.

Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.

Same mutations, different environment.

 

[Montrovant]

Does anyone else wonder how long this thread can keep going, considering the arguments seem to have been pretty much exhausted and are getting to the point of just being rehashed between the same people?