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.
he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?
Wrong again daws.
Isaac Newton
Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
Isaac Newton
During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ. In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
Sorry; misread. Sure;
We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases. Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.
So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans. Fact.
Now rebut ...
What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
That's how it works in the refutation game.
Wrong again daws.
Isaac Newton
Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
Isaac Newton
During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ. In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?
Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.
What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
That's how it works in the refutation game.
It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
My first response was a refutation.
he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?
Wrong again daws.
Isaac Newton
Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
xxA century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on. Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict. To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces. According to an oft-repeated but probably embellished account, when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte,Napoleon asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. "Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Laplace notwithstanding, plenty of scientists besides Newton have called on God—or the gods—wherever their comprehension fades to ignorance
The Perimeter of Ignorance | Natural History Magazine
What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
That's how it works in the refutation game.
It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
My first response was a refutation.
Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.
But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.
Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
They used to be able to easily explain shit away. Poor crop? Must be god's not happy. Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.
Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella. From apes??? How stupid is that???
Oops. Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa. Mutherfucker.
But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!! That's just fucking lunacy!!! Oops. Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off. So yeah; that tree thing might be right.
But no big bang!!! That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!! Oops. Background radiation? Fuck. Okay; big bang happened.
But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!! And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved. Well goddamnit! Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.
Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect. Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do. Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!
WHAT???? Quantum Mechanics?????? Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????
Well YES!!! Of course. We've been telling you it all along. This shit is fucking complicated. So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms. Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!! For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.
But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!
Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances. Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out. And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise. Many are miscarried or still-born. Others have defects. Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs. Others die young of childhood diseases. It's entirely random, and all over the map.
I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.
Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.
What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
Google "prokaryotes." That's where it started, which by the way, required billions of years to come about. No quick deal, to get to anything quite as highly-evolved as a single-cell living organism. Quite a big deal, long in the making. Then the easy part: Cambrian period, where shit gets more complex (more cells) then so on and so on for some billions more years, until REALLY highly-evolved forragers or maybe hunter-gathers looked up, saw shiny stuff in the sky, and thought: Gods? Why hell yes. It's shiny, and in the sky. PROOF!!! Gods a plenty exist. What's that? Only one god? Okay; if you say so.
AS always wrong, Darwin was as modern and tech savvy for his time as any scientist is today.No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
it's another one of your ignorant false comparisons.
by your lack of reasoning Einstein is primitive when compared to Stephan hawking!
and how many gay people would that be one ..two ..five..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?
Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
the admission of child sexual abuse is no indicator of sexual preference.
you interpreted it that way to fit you agenda.
The American Psychiatric Association stated in its May 2000 website fact sheet "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues":
"[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.
Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."
May 2000 - American Psychiatric Association
Kali Munro, M.Ed., an online psychotherapist, wrote the following statements in her 2002 article titled "Am I Gay Because of the Abuse?," and posted on her website KaliMunro.com (accessed Mar. 5, 2009):
"Sexual abuse can interfere with sexual enjoyment; contribute to a survivor engaging in sexual behaviours that arise from the abuse; and interfere with survivors' ability to know what they want. But, sexual abuse can't create a survivor's deepest passion and desires...
We are all socially conditioned through culture, education, family, media, etc. Sexual abuse is another form of conditioning. As a result, sexual abuse survivors can be drawn to or be repulsed by things that have nothing to do with their authentic selves, and have more to do with their abuse... Homophobia plays a big role in creating the link between gay sexuality and sexual abuse. The myth that lesbians and gay men are sexual predators is still very much alive. In a society that links lesbian and gay sexuality with sexual predators, and where there is little or no information for youth about lesbian and gay sexuality, many lesbian and gay survivors assume that sexual abuse by someone of the same sex is what being gay is...
The truth is that sexual abuse and sexuality are a million miles apart; they truly have nothing in common. Something as wonderful and beautiful as our sexuality could never have arisen out of something as ugly and painful as sexual abuse."
Can childhood sexual abuse by a person of the same sex cause homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org
he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.Yes; Really.
While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.
To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.
I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?
Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ? You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.
I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.
Okay. Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars. I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away. But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet. Whoops.
Grand standing without proof,I see.
Okay. Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars. I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away. But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet. Whoops.
Grand standing without proof,I see.
Correct. Just possible evidence of it (life on Mars) in combination with a new lander of remarkable ability.
We know frozen water is on Mars, and that at one time liquid water once flowed. So I think we're near to finding conclusive proof that life once existed there.
Precisely!!! And when we do not know exactly what happened this day in history 65 million years ago, and can only know that things definitely happened within ranges of time we call "periods," the real answer is: GOD!!!! That's the ticket!!!
That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.
Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.
Sorry; misread. Sure;
We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases. Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.
So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans. Fact.
Now rebut ...
What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Why would the gawds "design" with such incompetence?
You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
I don't disputed the fact that harmful mutations are plentiful. That doesn't mean that beneficial ones don't happen. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but you don't seem to want to address this at all. In fact, I previously provided evidence of a beneficial mutation with the example of the gene mutation about 5000 years ago which enables adult
Humans the ability to digest lactase. This could be seen as massively beneficial because it allows more nutrition over a lifetime, especially in the context of humans who had domesticated animals and settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As a vegan, I hate to present this evidence, but historically, at least, it could be argued that this mutation was beneficial. Today, with factory farming and the sheer overconsumption of animal products, it can be shown scientifically that it is likely detrimental to human health when consumed as we do today, producing much of the heart disease, cancer and diabetes we see in America, especially with antibiotics and growth hormones pumped into these animals, which we then ingest. This is as an aside. The main point here is a mutation happened that at one point benefitted us.
It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
Isaac Newton
During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ. In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?
Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.
What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.
Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newtons behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.
I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
I don't disputed the fact that harmful mutations are plentiful. That doesn't mean that beneficial ones don't happen. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but you don't seem to want to address this at all. In fact, I previously provided evidence of a beneficial mutation with the example of the gene mutation about 5000 years ago which enables adult
Humans the ability to digest lactase. This could be seen as massively beneficial because it allows more nutrition over a lifetime, especially in the context of humans who had domesticated animals and settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As a vegan, I hate to present this evidence, but historically, at least, it could be argued that this mutation was beneficial. Today, with factory farming and the sheer overconsumption of animal products, it can be shown scientifically that it is likely detrimental to human health when consumed as we do today, producing much of the heart disease, cancer and diabetes we see in America, especially with antibiotics and growth hormones pumped into these animals, which we then ingest. This is as an aside. The main point here is a mutation happened that at one point benefitted us.
Still ignoring the Lisa Ling expose' video??
The issue really is that you're unable to offer an explanation for the incompetence of your alleged designer gawds. That is why your only response is childish name-calling.What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Why would the gawds "design" with such incompetence?
Asked and answered so many times you get the golden imbecile award for asking it again. Might want to get help for your learning disability.
