Creationists

[daws101]

You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.

that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .

How do you know what was meant with all the language barriers going from the Hebrew language of 3,500 years ago to modern day english ?

that's not an answer.
in any language modern or ancient a circle is not a sphere.
funny that you came up with such a bullshit answer ,when you're always yammering about how intelligent biblical people were supposed to have been..
if the bible is as accurate as you wish it was, then why, if, as you claim they knew the world was a sphere they did not say it?
dodge in 5....4....3....2.....1

 

[daws101]

Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?

only if the believers are ignorant suckers.
KEN ham like you has no right to speak for any one but himself.
I know a lot of christians who know he's full of shit.

I don't agree with everything ken ham has said nor do I agree with everything UR say's. I can agree to disagree with people daws I am not a robot.

you're right you're not near that sophisticated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

it suggests nothing of the kind....
your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.

What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.

From the site that you people seem to quote alot.

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:
1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

CB901: No Macroevolution

Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.

Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.

We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.

another empty challenge from Ywc!
Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
claim a false win?

Ok so I will kill three birds with one post.

 

[Youwerecreated]

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.

It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.

that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!

I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?

No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.

So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.

you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .


please present your version of conjecture.

There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.

 

[lovemymutts]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Babies toys from China with lead paint on them.

Huggy, That was FANFUCKINGTASTIC .BRAVO

 

[Youwerecreated]

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do

only an ignorant asshole would say that.
A soul is just another name for sentience.
as much as you wish a soul means proof of god there is no quanitative or observed action or evidence linking the two..
belife is not evidence.
your so wrong It's funny

Be careful who you call ignorant you babbling fool.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.

That is why there are a lot of evolutionist walking around using conjecture as evidence for their magical theories.

Where are there evolutionary biologists walking around using conjecture as evidence? What are you even talking about?

They use it for evolution,they use it for the age of the universe,they use it for the origins question,they use it to explain away evidence of design in nature.,need I go on ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

dodge


1

My response was honest and straight to the point.

you have no point.
you are trying and failing to endow chemical reaction with a quality it does no process.
enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
by that I mean, you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
all you shown is totally subjective denial.

 

[Youwerecreated]

dodge


1

My response was honest and straight to the point.

you have no point.
you are trying and failing to endow chemical reaction with a quality it does no process.
enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
by that I mean, you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
all you shown is totally subjective denial.

The Enzymes I was mostly referring to help to prevent mutations. The Enzymes just conveniently found their way into the cell and our bodies.

Why are enzymes important?

 

[daws101]

What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.

From the site that you people seem to quote alot.

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:
1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

CB901: No Macroevolution

Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.

Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?

I did and I'm right.

you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC

YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
EVERY THING YOU SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...

the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.

another empty challenge from Ywc!
Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
claim a false win?

Ok so I will kill three birds with one post.

JUST AS EXPECTED false bravado and a false claim..

 

[Youwerecreated]

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.

From the site that you people seem to quote alot.

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:
1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

CB901: No Macroevolution

Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.

Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?

I did and I'm right.

you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC

YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
EVERY THING YOU SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...

the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws the desperation is not mine wrong,macroevolution are large changes above the species level and micro is change within a family or group below the species level got it ?

 

[daws101]

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.

It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices the cealocanth is obviously not !
once again Ywc is comparing apples and screwdrivers and failing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another empty challenge from Ywc!
Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
claim a false win?

Ok so I will kill three birds with one post.

JUST AS EXPECTED false bravado and a false claim..

Daws this is not a fair debate because I know both sides of the argument better then you. You are wasting your time.

You do make it entertaining though.

 

[daws101]

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.

that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!

I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.

another one of your favorite delusions...

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices the cealocanth is obviously not !
once again Ywc is comparing apples and screwdrivers and failing.

Uh oh.

<i>Tiktaalik</i> Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - Evolution News & Views

 

[Youwerecreated]

that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!

I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.

another one of your favorite delusions...

You are just to ignorant to admit you were wrong.