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.
If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete fucking idiots.
Fact, not opinion.
Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.
When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete fucking idiots.
Fact, not opinion.
Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.
When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.
When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance." This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory on par with the theory of gravitation, and you don't even have a basic understanding of the general concepts?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.
You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.
Shhh, honey, the big kids are talking. When you have a 3rd grade understanding of evolution concepts, then you can participate in whimsical conjecture about how established scientific facts may play out in the future.Have you not seen evolutionist make the claim that evolution has not stopped, everything is still evolving ? They made this claim in this thread.
You people don't know what the heck to believe.
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.
AHAHA now you're moving to #5. Ignorance is so predictable it's astonishing!Then how did the origins of life start ?
How do you know life was not the product of design ?
Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
How do you want to play it ?
"Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer? To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish.The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA. hey, you should watch this informative video:Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.
When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon. I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?
I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance." This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory on par with the theory of gravitation...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.
You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.
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.
AHAHA now you're moving to #5. Ignorance is so predictable it's astonishing!Then how did the origins of life start ?
How do you know life was not the product of design ?
Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
How do you want to play it ?
You seem to think a history dissertation on people studying science is proof of credentials of being a scientist? Perhaps if I write a long paper on the history of mozart I would instantly have the credentials to compose symphonies or play the violin! I really like your reasoning. Maybe if I, as a history major, report on the great depression, I can get a job as an economist. If I academically discuss the philosophy behind naval wars in the last 1000 years, do you think I could ask to become a US Navy Fleet Admiral? Maybe if I write a dissertation on American football, someone will hire me as a quarterback to a major NFL team. I love your reasoning. Yes, this surely creates sound credentialing.Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.
I'm sure you have some good point in there, but you should probably explain it to the rest of us. The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are similar because they are both sound scientific theories as deemed so by the scientific community based on evidence. What part of that do you disagree with exactly?I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance." This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory on par with the theory of gravitation...You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.
Typical cut and paste from angry atheist websites. This shows a 3rd grade understanding of the differences between the historical sciences and the observational sciences. What a mindless, spoon-fed atheist lap dog you've just proven yourself to be. Your credibility is totally shredded with that stupid statement.
"Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer? To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish...The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.
Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw
Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist. Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???You seem to think a history dissertation on people studying science is proof of credentials of being a scientist? Perhaps if I write a long paper on the history of mozart I would instantly have the credentials to compose symphonies or play the violin! I really like your reasoning.Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.
Maybe if I, as a history major, report on the great depression, I can get a job as an economist. If I academically discuss the philosophy behind naval wars in the last 1000 years, do you think I could ask to become a US Navy Fleet Admiral? Maybe if I write a dissertation on American football, someone will hire me as a quarterback to a major NFL team. I love your reasoning. Yes, this surely creates sound credentialing.
I'm sure you have some good point in there, but you should probably explain it to the rest of us. The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are similar because they are both sound scientific theories as deemed so by the scientific community based on evidence. What part of that do you disagree with exactly?I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance." This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory on par with the theory of gravitation...
Typical cut and paste from angry atheist websites. This shows a 3rd grade understanding of the differences between the historical sciences and the observational sciences. What a mindless, spoon-fed atheist lap dog you've just proven yourself to be. Your credibility is totally shredded with that stupid statement.
As for the term "historic science" I had to look that one up. The first hit on google provided this excerpt: "The term is often misused by creationists" Well that answers my questions pretty quickly. It's a made up term to muddy the waters because actual reasoning doesn't work. If you disagree, please point out which part of the scientific method is less valid with "historic science"
So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct? Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly? HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours."Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer? To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish...The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
What is foolish is your childish understanding of the design argument. It is not merely complex information Einstein. Shannon information is complex. It is complex information with specificity. It imparts a function. This doesn't occur randomly in nature... EVER. There is not a single, modern day example of randomly-occurring, complex, functional information. ALL of it has an intelligent agent as its source. If you can find such a modern day random occurrence, then you can single-handedly disprove the ID theory. Good luck with that.
The specifiably complex information in DNA was created billions of years ago, along with molecular machines to translate and transcribe it, to use the information to build proteins with complex folds, without which they could not perform their complex functions. This information, the origin of which an intelligent agent is the only viable explanation, has been passed along for billions of years.
Once again, it is your lack of understanding of what you are dealing with that has exposed you as the 3rd grader.
I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha.Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist. Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???
You still seem to be pushing hard on the Darwin thing as the end-all of evolution. How short sighted.You wouldn't know the scientific method if it hit you in the face because it has been so bastardized by the "make it up as you go along" pseudo science of evolution. You really have no clue the spoon fed atheist agenda you are even arguing so I really don't feel like wasting my time to bring you up to speed. The information is out there if you are truly seeking the truth. But alas, like everyone else that shows up here, you are hopelessly blinded by your materialistic, atheist agenda. Your confirmation bias blinds you from the validity of any opposing viewpoint. Even if Charles Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you his whole book was a lie, you would come up with some excuse because you will never deny the religion that motivates you.
Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.
Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw
So your counterargument to the defined limitations of evolution is a sci-fi movie about ALIENS from outer space. Really now? Please go on. Tell me more about how Jodie Foster teaches you about creationism.
Who said DNA occurred randomly? I love when hicks say things like that. It really shows that they're arguing against a concept they don't understand. Evolution is not an entirely random process. If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random.
So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct? Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly? HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours."Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.
I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer? To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish...
What is foolish is your childish understanding of the design argument. It is not merely complex information Einstein. Shannon information is complex. It is complex information with specificity. It imparts a function. This doesn't occur randomly in nature... EVER. There is not a single, modern day example of randomly-occurring, complex, functional information. ALL of it has an intelligent agent as its source. If you can find such a modern day random occurrence, then you can single-handedly disprove the ID theory. Good luck with that.
The specifiably complex information in DNA was created billions of years ago, along with molecular machines to translate and transcribe it, to use the information to build proteins with complex folds, without which they could not perform their complex functions. This information, the origin of which an intelligent agent is the only viable explanation, has been passed along for billions of years.
Once again, it is your lack of understanding of what you are dealing with that has exposed you as the 3rd grader.
