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.
You're free to believe creationist insistence of literal biblical tales and fables including a 6000 year old earth. Among the enlightened and relevant science community, there is no doubt about hunankinds lineage extending hundreds of thousands of years into the past.The belief that the earth is 6000 years old stems from research done by Bishop James Ussher who arrived at the figure by adding the lifespans of the offspring of Adam and Eve. Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. I would say that most don't.
Fundie atheists love to use the 6000 year figure to belittle people of faith while maintaining, with a straight face, that hydrogen evolves into human beings.
The concept of spontaneous generation was disproved years ago, yet fundie atheists still maintain that is exactly how life began -- some sort of mysterious generation of cells from an undefined primordial soup.
They leap from the perfectly reasonable assumption that environment affects the genetic makeup of populations to the preposterous notion that evolution is the sole reason things are the way they are.
Evolution to them is a magical force that shapes our being based on the miracle of random chance. They steadfastly maintain the idiotic lie that dogs evolved from wolves while everyone with a triple digit IQ understands that they are a product of selective breeding.
Living things adapt to their environment or die. That is not a groundbreaking idea, or the be-all end-all of existence.
Fundie atheists constantly create straw man gods and then destroy the straw man ecstatically claiming that they've proven there is no God.
Fundie athiests take it as an article of faith that any teleological evidence of design in living matter is a creationist plot.
They are, on the whole, not very bright and should be ignored by people of good will with a genuine desire to know the universe.
I have no idea how long man has been on this planet it could not have been as long as evolutionist claim though and that is a fact supported by the data.
Creantionist love science and to want to know how God did it. You're sounding like an atheist fundie and should be ignored.
Geez that was simple.
YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?
Yes and the process of repairing mutations are enzymes that find and attempt to repair these errors. That to me is evidence for design not something that would happen by random chance.
Ask away. Any question you wish. Better?
So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
No; still doesn't. One goose and one frog is not two of either.
I would argue that any selection pressure that caused humans to get taller over even relatively recent human history no longer exists. Technically, we are always evolving in small ways, but I am saying there isn't a consistent enough selection pressure to produce a macroscopically observable effects anymore. Although, one exception might those that are best able to deal with environmental toxins such as plastics, industrial chemicals in our water and food. Those that are able to live surrounded by these carcinogenic substances without developing cancer might be the next stage of humans. This is the only possible avenue I see for us evolutionarily. As long as everyone is permitted to live because of modern medicine, which will only get better, the idea of selection pressure becomes obsolete for humans. Although sexual selection will always be there, and is something I am not taking into account. So, at best, I am saying no natural selection exists for humans anymore, aside from getting past environmental toxins. This simply leaves sexual selection to do whatever it is it will do. Who knows.
Chicks dig taller guys, and thus have taller babies.
Indeed. Sexual selection is still in play. But they could only get so tall without further mutation. As the population gets bigger, it will take longer for these mutations to be expressed in the entire population. In other words, without mutation, the species could only become as tall as the tallest human right now. Isn't this the case? I am kind of guessing here, but it seems intuitive.
I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
No; still doesn't. One goose and one frog is not two of either.
Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.
that would be nothing real to say ,and it's like all your accusations false.how's that? hollies' never denied you're full of shit.Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.
face it wyc you're de queen of denial.
You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
how's that? hollies' never denied your full of shit.Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.
face it wyc you're de queen of denial.
You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
what no horseradish?how's that? hollies' never denied your full of shit.
face it wyc you're de queen of denial.
You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
Patently false. In my refer, right now, I have ...
Mayo
Mustard (multiple)
Cream cheese
Tapenade
Others ... plus x-refero, PB, etc.
what no horseradish?You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
Patently false. In my refer, right now, I have ...
Mayo
Mustard (multiple)
Cream cheese
Tapenade
Others ... plus x-refero, PB, etc.
It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
I didn't think so.
Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
What ever floats your boat but that is hardly what evolutionist think.
Chicks dig taller guys, and thus have taller babies.
Indeed. Sexual selection is still in play. But they could only get so tall without further mutation. As the population gets bigger, it will take longer for these mutations to be expressed in the entire population. In other words, without mutation, the species could only become as tall as the tallest human right now. Isn't this the case? I am kind of guessing here, but it seems intuitive.
Mutations happen no matter how smart our smart-phones get, nor how fast our computers become. So that aspect of human evolution will proceed as it has.
Meanwhile, aesthetics (choice / natural selection) will change with the zeitgeist, and thus come into play, as it always has, too.
We evolved and are evolving. Simple truth.
you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
No; still doesn't. One goose and one frog is not two of either.
Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.
you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.No; still doesn't. One goose and one frog is not two of either.
Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.
Indeed. Sexual selection is still in play. But they could only get so tall without further mutation. As the population gets bigger, it will take longer for these mutations to be expressed in the entire population. In other words, without mutation, the species could only become as tall as the tallest human right now. Isn't this the case? I am kind of guessing here, but it seems intuitive.
Mutations happen no matter how smart our smart-phones get, nor how fast our computers become. So that aspect of human evolution will proceed as it has.
Meanwhile, aesthetics (choice / natural selection) will change with the zeitgeist, and thus come into play, as it always has, too.
We evolved and are evolving. Simple truth.
Mutations and sexual selection will continue to happen. Natural selection will not. What this means for our evolutionary future remains to be seen. If we have taken away what drives natural selection- the death of those unfit before they can pass in their genetic information, then natural selection is over. Perhaps we will simply devolve at this point. In this sense, YWC has a point, but it js not for the reasons or having the outcome he thinks and predicts. Nor will it be that simple. The presence of what would normally be bad DNA in our population does not mean destruction for the entire species because of sexual selection.
YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?
Yes and the process of repairing mutations are enzymes that find and attempt to repair these errors. That to me is evidence for design not something that would happen by random chance.
Who said it happened by random chance? I love when hicks use phrases like that. It demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge on the subject. In this case, it comes down to the idea that you don't understand something, and therefore it must be divine intervention that created it. In a nutshell: Your stupidity equals your religion.
Hey YWC, let's pull out your old playbook.
I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. Well, multiple times.
Remember this from years ago? It's how I could prophesize your ignorant hick ways. It's rather sad that you've had absolutely zero intellectual growth in all that time. Let's lay it out again.
HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
1. Claim evolution is made up.
2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.
Wow! You're following you're ignorant hick playbook really well still after all this time. Looks like you're on #3 right now.
Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
What ever floats your boat but that is hardly what evolutionist think.
Source?
You do realize that we are talking about the future here? I am not the only one who thinks this either. Michio Kaku has said the same thing, and I am willing to bet many others do as well.
Hey YWC, let's pull out your old playbook.
I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. Well, multiple times.
Remember this from years ago? It's how I could prophesize your ignorant hick ways. It's rather sad that you've had absolutely zero intellectual growth in all that time. Let's lay it out again.
HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
1. Claim evolution is made up.
2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.
Wow! You're following you're ignorant hick playbook really well still after all this time. Looks like you're on #3 right now.
In your dreams pal and no you don't strike me as being smarter than a hick.
Hey YWC, let's pull out your old playbook.
I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. Well, multiple times.
Remember this from years ago? It's how I could prophesize your ignorant hick ways. It's rather sad that you've had absolutely zero intellectual growth in all that time. Let's lay it out again.
HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
1. Claim evolution is made up.
2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.
Wow! You're following you're ignorant hick playbook really well still after all this time. Looks like you're on #3 right now.
In your dreams pal and no you don't strike me as being smarter than a hick.
Then apply your vastly smarter-than-hick intelligence to this little thought experiment:
1. Question evolution, demanding everything be known, down the minutia of how and when evolution occurred.
2. Question creation, demanding everything be known, down to the minutia of how and when creation occurred.
And apply the same evidentiary rules when doing both.
