Creationists

[Koios]

No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.

wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.

So you say

Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.

But with God, let's not be so strident. Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness. Fair enough. What does He look like? Male pattern baldness, or great hair? Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better? Color of His eyes?

Whadaya got?

 

[Youwerecreated]

wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.

So you say

Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.

But with God, let's not be so strident. Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness. Fair enough. What does He look like? Male pattern baldness, or great hair? Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better? Color of His eyes?

Whadaya got?

If you think man has the ability to judge the age of the earth or universe I have ocean front property in Arizona you can buy. The fossil record is a joke. Ever heard of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why it exists ?

 

[Koios]

So you say

Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.

But with God, let's not be so strident. Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness. Fair enough. What does He look like? Male pattern baldness, or great hair? Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better? Color of His eyes?

Whadaya got?

If you think man has the ability to judge the age of the earth or universe I have ocean front property in Arizona you can buy. The fossil record is a joke. Ever heard of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why it exists ?

Okie doke. At least we know what the universe looks like (and looked like; being light travels a snails pace of only ~300 million meters a second, and it's big goddamn Universe) and we have some nice 3D examples of dinosaurs and shit, what with the many bones we keep digging up. So there's that.

Back to God, who apparently we look like, and Moses not to mention others chatted it up with frequently (comparitively, what with none having done so, too much, lately. Perhaps He's losing interest. Who knows. But anyway, you get the idea): what does He look like?

Got anything?

 

[Hollie]

So you say

Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.

But with God, let's not be so strident. Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness. Fair enough. What does He look like? Male pattern baldness, or great hair? Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better? Color of His eyes?

Whadaya got?

If you think man has the ability to judge the age of the earth or universe I have ocean front property in Arizona you can buy. The fossil record is a joke. Ever heard of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why it exists ?

I find it not the least bit odd that a religious zealot would decide that many complimentary branches of science and the consensus they share all amounts to a global conspiracy.

 

[Hollie]

The important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.Such variation within created kinds of organisms is observable in nature and may be influenced by natural selection as well as other factors genetic drift, founder effects, etc. Creation scientists do not disagree that such change occurs and is even a way in which speciation sometimes occurs.

Can you explain scientifically what is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of "variation" within a "kind" but somehow slams the door shut at the "kind barrier", preventing one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind".

It Seems Kent Hovind is a Liar too

Microadaptations.

Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.

Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.

Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Youwerecreated]

Can you explain scientifically what is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of "variation" within a "kind" but somehow slams the door shut at the "kind barrier", preventing one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind".

It Seems Kent Hovind is a Liar too

Microadaptations.

Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.

Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.

Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

 

[Hollie]

Microadaptations.

Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.

Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.

Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.

Care to elaborate.

 

[Hollie]

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.

Care to elaborate.

Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?

 

[Youwerecreated]

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.

This article addresses your point.


Species” and “Kind”


by Dr. Gary Parker on

January 1, 1994




author-gary-parker
creation-facts-of-life
evolution
kinds
speciation

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?

Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.

?Species? and ?Kind? - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.

Care to elaborate.

Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?

You're such a bonehead.

 

[Hollie]

Care to elaborate.

Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?

You're such a bonehead.

You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?

You're such a bonehead.

You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".

I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?

 

[newpolitics]

A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.

Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.

Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?

Why should I? You don't get to make demands of knowledge that you yourself can't provide. You can't prove your gods existence, so you are no better off than I am.

 

[LittleNipper]

A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.

Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.

Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?

Why should I? You don't get to make demands if knowledge that you yourself can't provide. You can't prove your gods existence, so you are no better off than I am.

But you seem to be allowed an advantage. You can promote your beliefs as scientific. But Christians cannot promote their beliefs being spiritual. Miracles happen every day, you have just shut your heart to them. You replace the word "miracle" with the word "coincidence" and you consider yourself scientific?

 

[newpolitics]

If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.

Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.

What kind of rationale is used by the naturalist to believe that important things needed for good health such as;

Sodium,potassium,fiber,sugars,protein,vitamin A,Vitamin C,Iron, Vitamin D3,Vitamin E, Thiamin B1, Riboflavin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B6,Folic Acid, Vitamin B12,Biotin, Pantothenic Acid,Phosphrous, Magnesium,Zinc,Manganese,Tocotrienols, Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids,Inositol Ip6, Gamma Oryzanol,Phyto Sterols,Beta Sitosterol. All provided to us through plants and minerals that our body needs for health and wellness and good cell reproduction.

What kind of rationale do you people use to believe all of this just came naturally that a designer did not proivide these things to us.

You people say you use logic but do you really ?

What kind of logic are you using to say there is a designer without any evidence? This is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how matter got here (the Big Bang), so you posit an explanation, and claim it is true, with no evidence or justification. You apparently have no functional understanding of logic or epistemology. I wish you did, because then we wouldn't have to constantly be putting down your tired, Oft-repeated arguments ad infinitum.

 

[newpolitics]

Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.

Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?

Why should I? You don't get to make demands if knowledge that you yourself can't provide. You can't prove your gods existence, so you are no better off than I am.

But you seem to be allowed an advantage. You can promote your beliefs as scientific. But Christians cannot promote their beliefs being spiritual. Miracles happen every day, you have just shut your heart to them. You replace the word "miracle" with the word "coincidence" and you consider yourself scientific?

Those whose claims have evidence have an advantage. That's the way it works. Otherwise, you are vulnerable to believing anything without it actually being true.

 

[newpolitics]

Actually, those whose claims have evidence are the only ones we are justified in believing, and possibly calling knowledge. Lacking evidence, there is no justification for belief. You don't know if your religious beliefs are Correct. Were you born in a different time or place, your theology would be utterly different, yet you would hold it with as much conviction as you do know. You have no way of knowing which, if any, of the worlds religions are true. You believe in Christianity purely because of your geography. That should irk you a bit.

 

[newpolitics]

You seem to think that the standards of evidence are arbitrary. This is where you are wrong. The standards of evidence in science are simply that evidence is required, and should be able to be observed by anyone else who follows the same procedure. Therefore, this is an objective standard, not some subjective standard that religious people who hate science complain about. They just want their epistemology to be on the same level as science, but without demonstrable evidence, it will never be. This isn't a bias, its just that religious claims are unreliable. If god showed up in the evidence, there would be no bias against him. Yet, god isn't shown in any evidence. Humans are fallible beings with inherent cognitive biases which religion seems to promote and in fact, be a product of. Science attempts to minimize these biases using evidence and peer review.

 

[Hollie]

You're such a bonehead.

You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".

I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?

Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?