Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Then I am sure you have some peer reviewed articles or papers that can verify this research. Produce them or that statement is bunk.

Oh boy,I was s lab tech and had creationists views need I say more. What I am teaching can be confirmed with a little work on your part the questions however are thought provoking for the others hate the questions because they know if they answer them honestly it hurts their argument for evolution.

None huh? Then all you have is a degree that means bunk most here....oh I am sorry I failed to be impressed.....all you people with degrees are the same you think because you had your head buried in a book for 4 years you know more than everyone else. What, you think those that do not have fancy $100,000 degrees cannot read and understand? I have more respect for those that don't have one at least they can find their way out of a wet paper bag.

Typical. "I was learned by the internet ma."

 

[UltimateReality]

I have a question

How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??

I have another one

How do we know that the supposedly naturally selected adaptations we see in the human race now were actually the ones that were the most fit?

 

[CrackedSkull]

Oh boy,I was s lab tech and had creationists views need I say more. What I am teaching can be confirmed with a little work on your part the questions however are thought provoking for the others hate the questions because they know if they answer them honestly it hurts their argument for evolution.

None huh? Then all you have is a degree that means bunk most here....oh I am sorry I failed to be impressed.....all you people with degrees are the same you think because you had your head buried in a book for 4 years you know more than everyone else. What, you think those that do not have fancy $100,000 degrees cannot read and understand? I have more respect for those that don't have one at least they can find their way out of a wet paper bag.

Typical. "I was learned by the internet ma."

As most of us are these days. I think everyone has a degree in Google....

 

[ima]

I have a question

How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??

I have another one

How do we know that the supposedly naturally selected adaptations we see in the human race now were actually the ones that were the most fit?

Not sure that we do know the answer to that, but even so, ignorance doesn't automatically point to a supernatural being?


...Or does it?

 

[ima]

The penis and the vagina. Two great things that go great together.

So you have nothing. Check.

They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.

If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? Do you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice? Because I'm a lesbian, and I don't know any. I tried being hetero and even have 2 kids, but I couldn't keep the charade going. As for guys looking like women and vice versa, the same thing goes on in hetero couples, ex: some guys marry really ugly man-looking women.
So who decided that gays aren't in god's plan? You never answered.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution predicts junk DNA. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.

It does more than predict, it identifies. We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.

This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.

Rabid cultists like to point to the self-correcting nature of science as a weakness. On the contrary, it’s a virtue. It allows for the growth of knowledge as opposed to the unchanging and error-filled proscriptions of biblical tales and fables.

This is why pressing Christian creationists for a description of how they account for the diversity of life on the planet is such a chore. They find themselves to be wholly inadequate except to blather on about “the gawds did it”. Just because fundies don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. It’s also a common theme among fundies that their denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the science involved, but everything to do with upsetting their literal interpretation of the bible.

It’s laughable to realize that there are no hypotheses as part of “creation science”. That’s because hypotheses (with reference to the relevant science community), cannot further the advancement of "creationism". It’s also laughable to realize that “creation science” has no theories. How strange, because a theory (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a physical event or a phenomenon. A valid scientific theory, such as an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments must then be available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.

As usual, posing these challenges to the rabid Christian creationist cultists leaves us only with the sound of crickets chirping in the distance.

 

[Hollie]

I have a question

How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??

I have another one

How do we know that the supposedly naturally selected adaptations we see in the human race now were actually the ones that were the most fit?

You would have to have a first one in order to reasonably make the comment that you now have "another one".

We now return you to your stupor:

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."
-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey​

 

[Koios]

Evolution predicts junk DNA. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.

It does more than predict, it identifies. We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.

This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.

While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.

We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.

And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout. The Bible is thus highly unreliable.

 

[newpolitics]

When it comes to meiosis, there is no repair mechanism, because there is no time. The cell had already been made with the copying mistake included, so what are you referring to? If outside radiation causing a mutation to a cell in an already existing organism, attempts will be made to repair it, of course. This is not possible within the four cells created during meiosis. Are you suggesting these repair proteins open up all of the gametes ever made, search through all if the DNA, do a comparison to the existing DNA in one if the parent genes... This doesn't even make plausible sense. A mutation during meiosis would be left as is, and ale to express itself in an offspring unfettered.

 

[newpolitics]

That last post was a response to one of ywc's posts about repair mechanisms.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pay closer attention. I'm a marketing executive, and am astonished by your lack of understanding of evolution.

You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?

Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case. However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.

Possible?

Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination from primitive humans.

Possible ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Welcome to the party. Shall I enumerate the questions you've dodged?

Now then, this?

"Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?"

Not why; what. It replicates, where a copy is the assumption. But it doesn't always preserve; it fucks up (mutates). Ergo evolution.

Why? Third generation star and solar system. Lot's of complex molecules. Also right size and distance from star, not to mention larger outter planets that protect earth from most impacts. Add liquid water, organic molecules and fucking bingo. Shit happens, and here it did.

Stay on topic we are discussing mutations. I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.

Note that I responded directly to a question posed by you. If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.

Astonishing. Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)

You go off on your bad analogies along with using the wrong terms. Everyone knows the University of Arizona is a fine institution for the sciences.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.

The understanding of the conceptual basis of evolution has moved beyond simply stating that evolution is true because evolution occurs.
The concept of the "Selfish Gene" has proven to be of value.
The concept is that the organism that can successfully pass on the most copies of its genes is the organism that survives and reproduces. It’s actually a battle for survival and reproduction among genes rather than among organisms. A gene that contributes something to the success of an organism surviving and reproducing fares better in this competition than the gene that contributes nothing. The concept of the “selfish gene” explains cooperative behavior among genes and also among organisms such as ants and bees.
Also, for a long time biologists thought that the human genome contained a lot of "junk" DNA, perhaps as much as 80% of the genome was "junk". That view has changed.
See Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role
I for one thought that it was strange that these "selfish genes" were as it were competing to produce as many copies of themselves as possible (that survived to produce more copies), and that up to 80% of this genome was nonfunctional "junk". Recent work described in that article changes the picture substantially.

Evolution predicts junk DNA. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.

This is very true.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Note that I responded directly to a question posed by you. If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.

Astonishing. Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)

I went there too. I think if you get out of the house every once in awhile you will find there are a great many intelligent folks who didn't get brainwashed by the materialism bullshit so prevalent in institutions of "higher learning" that hold many respected positions in the scientific community. I know several people at my church that are researchers at the translational genomics lab in Phoenix. Since you fell for it, that is, if you even went to college, you obviously can't see it.

TGen Home Page

Fuckin-a. I used to have some respect for Wildcats. Sigh.

Plus the anti-Mexican foolishness. That clusterfuck Joe Arpaio (sp?). What in the fuck is in the water they're pumping into AZ?

Astonishing.

You mean the most famous sheriff in america. Funny you're nothing more then an atheistic,liberal,Ideologue.

Maybe you're from berkley or or did I over estimate your resume.

 

[Youwerecreated]

your bigotry and ignorance really shines in this post.

No not at all, just speaking from the facts if you can't handle the truth that is your problem. From now on the discussion has moved on if you wish to continue this give and take stay on topic.

hey slapdick since when do you give orders?
I'll answer how when and where I please.

I have owned you since the beginning of this thread,you who is infatuated with the penis.

 

[Koios]

I went there too. I think if you get out of the house every once in awhile you will find there are a great many intelligent folks who didn't get brainwashed by the materialism bullshit so prevalent in institutions of "higher learning" that hold many respected positions in the scientific community. I know several people at my church that are researchers at the translational genomics lab in Phoenix. Since you fell for it, that is, if you even went to college, you obviously can't see it.

TGen Home Page

Fuckin-a. I used to have some respect for Wildcats. Sigh.

Plus the anti-Mexican foolishness. That clusterfuck Joe Arpaio (sp?). What in the fuck is in the water they're pumping into AZ?

Astonishing.

You mean the most famous sheriff in america. Funny you're nothing more then an atheistic,liberal,Ideologue.

Maybe you're from berkley or or did I over estimate your resume.

No. The most infamous.

No. Not a Berkeley grad. But it might help in the future to: 1) estimate, and; 2) reject. That'll save you time, and still get you to the right conclusion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution predicts junk DNA. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.

It does more than predict, it identifies. We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.

This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.

I guess this one has ignored the Genome project

 

[Koios]

Stay on topic we are discussing mutations. I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.

Note that I responded directly to a question posed by you. If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.

Astonishing. Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)

You go off on your bad analogies along with using the wrong terms. Everyone knows the University of Arizona is a fine institution for the sciences.

Okay; school me. What within my comment, to which you responded, was an analogy?

 

[Koios]

You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?

Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case. However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.

Possible?

Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination from primitive humans.

Possible ?

No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.

 

[Hollie]

You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?

Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case. However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.

Possible?

Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination from primitive humans.

Possible ?

Only possible in the twisted worldview of the creationist.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research​