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.
Nope. Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about. Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.
Then maybe you should know them before you pass judgement.
What's not to know? They're Creationists, making it their mission to advance the nonsense!!!!
If Jews are writing all manner of things about how eating pork is bad, might it be okay to assume they won't eat bacon?
Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.
trying to make a little extra cash with your sig line ..cheap.
again it's no proofCool. But I need your help. Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?
Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.
Amen.
It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
observation by who?
ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
Nope. That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works. It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time. Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit. Plus they raised goats and other beasts. And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable. So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "Each after their own kind" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL. (but we know better, now, don't we?)
It is you who is not understanding. Furthering a position on an issue would suggest that one has facts, evidence or at least the framework of a theory to bolster their position.What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as macroevolution never being seen but does he similarly question one or more forms of creation never being seen?
We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel). I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
And I'm astonished. Never seen macroevolution??? What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
Can these people be more dense!!!!! Astonishing. Truly. I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
The finches were not macro-evolutionThey were micro-adaptations.
You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as macroevolution never being seen but does he similarly question one or more forms of creation never being seen?
We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel). I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
And I'm astonished. Never seen macroevolution??? What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
Can these people be more dense!!!!! Astonishing. Truly. I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.Nope. That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works. It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time. Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit. Plus they raised goats and other beasts. And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable. So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "Each after their own kind" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL. (but we know better, now, don't we?)
What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?
It is you who needs to read the exchange.Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel). I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
And I'm astonished. Never seen macroevolution??? What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
Can these people be more dense!!!!! Astonishing. Truly. I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
It is you who is not understanding. Furthering a position on an issue would suggest that one has facts, evidence or at least the framework of a theory to bolster their position.Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel). I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
And I'm astonished. Never seen macroevolution??? What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
Can these people be more dense!!!!! Astonishing. Truly. I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
The finches were not macro-evolution
You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
As we saw, Spetner had neither. He made no case for whatever "creation" scenario he apparently was flailing his pom poms for. As is typical for creationists, Spetner spent a great deal of effort attempting to discredit science and evolution but was unable to offer a single, positive, countering argument for supermagical "creation".
ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.
What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?
"Proof" is an elusive term in science.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So, we can now expect a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
It is you who needs to read the exchange.I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
Please identify where I might find that.
It is you who needs to read the exchange.I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
Please identify where I might find that.
What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?
"Proof" is an elusive term in science.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So, we can now expect a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
Will you please quit posting this nonsense by Douglas Theobald this has already been refuted there has been no macro-evolution ever observed.So then, I'll take the above to mean that you will not and can not provide a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
"Proof" is an elusive term in science.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So, we can now expect a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
Will you please quit posting this nonsense by Douglas Theobald this has already been refuted there has been no macro-evolution ever observed.So then, I'll take the above to mean that you will not and can not provide a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
Spinning now that you were caught in a lie,typical of you
It is you who needs to read the exchange.No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
Please identify where I might find that.
Hollie you're a liar because Dr. Spetner is not a creationist
Will you please quit posting this nonsense by Douglas Theobald this has already been refuted there has been no macro-evolution ever observed.
Spinning now that you were caught in a lie,typical of you
Not spinning at all. I notice your frantic attempts to sidestep my query. So, where is your similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds?
Further, I'm not aware of any refutation you have provided to the work of Theobald. Is this yet another challenge you will dodge and sidestep?
It is you who needs to read the exchange.
I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
Please identify where I might find that.
Hollie you're a liar because Dr. Spetner is not a creationist
Your attempt at melodrama is weak. In the meantime, why don't you identify for us the non-random form of evolution proposed by Spetner?
Not spinning at all. I notice your frantic attempts to sidestep my query. So, where is your similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds?
Further, I'm not aware of any refutation you have provided to the work of Theobald. Is this yet another challenge you will dodge and sidestep?
The refutation was that Dr. Theobald extrapolated from cases of micro-adaptations and inferred macro-evolution.
