Creationists

[FurthurBB]

Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?

This question is just ignorant. No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set. This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.

Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.

How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.

Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.

If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?

What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?

No, they are not intelligent processes. The questions were all ignorant because they go against what is evidenced in nature. What is wrong with you?

 

[FurthurBB]

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

No it is not, sorry, we have already been through this.

Chirality is a problem for evolution not only does random mutations have to get it right where thigs belong but random mutations have to make the exact opposite. Most rational human beings would admit this is evidence of design.

Do you really think that ignoring reality will make it go away. I have already shown you that it is not a problem, but you cannot think for yourself. You let all these internet hacks do your thinking for you. it is really sad.

 

[FurthurBB]

Yes it does

Sometimes, I can not believe the crap you post. No, it does not no matter how much that would back the claims of others you keep citing if it was the truth.

I can't believe the crap you believe.

Luckily, it does not require your belief to be accurate.

 

[FurthurBB]

It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.

No, it does not, all it takes is enough genetic variation that successful breeding is not possible anymore.

When we breed we breed out information not in information. Purebreds if you do not bring new lines of genetics of the same breed eventually it would become harmful to the breed. That is why breeders of greyhounds started breeding european greyhounds with american greyhounds. This is a fact.

The reason why things only bring forth offspring of their kind is because they only have the genetic data to produce what they are. It is loony to suggest otherwise. Breeders know what the offspring will be because they know what they're breeding. Same with farmers.

There is tons of evidence that genetics decide what the offspring will be and genetics has always been a problem for evolutionist because they know they have to come up with a way for new information for macro-evolution to be possible and they know humans and animals only possess genetics produce after their kind exactly what the bible states ten times in genesis.

No, when we breed purbreds, we as people breed out variation. That has nothing to do with nature. Genetics has done nothing but solidified evolution every step of the way.

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk]Galaxy Song - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FurthurBB]

Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.

Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein. You are getting more out there every second.

It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

 

[daws101]

Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein. You are getting more out there every second.

It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

post of the century!

 

[LOki]

I have seen no logical fallacies on the part of koshergirl, ...

Your intellectual dishonesty is well documented, and there's really no reason I can see that you should draw a line at selectively avoiding the patent logical fallacies she applies.

Or projecting your lack of moral and intellectual integrity on to me. I note that you didn't bring evidence to support your accusation despite having the opportunity to do so.

If there's so many, why is that?

You've had your ass handed to you argumentatively, with the full substance of verifiable evidence and valid logic. You have only brought denial of verifiable reality and your pathetic application of faulty logic.

Most of you don't even realize the theory of punctuated equlibrium presents for your theory according to the fossil record.

You say "punctuated equilibrium" as if you have any idea of what it means, is inconsistent with what I've said, and believe it is a refutation of any argument I have made. And you do so without any substantive defense of your position. None.

You must be dreaming, i have seen no evidence presented to support your view.

Every bit of fossil evidence, instance of contemporary speciation, the entire field of genetics and molecular biology, and the application of valid logic supports my view. Your refusal to acknowledge the verifiable reality of that truth based on its inconsistency with your unvalidated preconceptions doesn't change the validity of my view.

Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.

Maybe not so much.

"PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​

Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.

 

[FurthurBB]

No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.

No no and no again you are wrong. I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.

I don't make things up, and i'm impressed you teach it at the graduate level. My teachers that believed this nonsense then is way out there just like you.

You're are wrong again,.

Definition for neo darwinism:




Web definitions:




a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.

Try modern synthesis instead, which is the proper term.

 

[FurthurBB]

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).



Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

 

[FurthurBB]

Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

The one problem for you is you don't know or understand what the modern day theory of evolution is. If you do then explain it in detail ?

BB claimed to be a biology teacher but didn't know what it was.

I do not like the term neodarwinism and did not know that it was in common use, since I have never heard it used, except by creationists. I see now that it may be used more commonly than I thought. Whew 2 points out of a million to you.

 

[daws101]

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).



Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

wondered that myself ,
he never did give an answer to what a "real scientist" is.

 

[FurthurBB]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Asked and answered.

 

[FurthurBB]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.

That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial. Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution. If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it. It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others. So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc. The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.

As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature. It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so. I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

#99 natural selection is not random.

 

[FurthurBB]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.

To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.

Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.



Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.

Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.

It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is survival and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.

If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.

Ridiculous!

 

[FurthurBB]

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

You misread my statement. What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want. In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact. Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive? That depends on the environment. And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator. It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop. It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know. I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory. We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing. Not that we will ever stop trying to know. The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist. None of us want to be put in that position.

 

[Youwerecreated]

From YWC's own link

"we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet. "

"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes."

Seems he's coming around, maybe science denying is getting old to him.

Please read the whole post it is one of your guys

The parts you ignore.

" Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."

This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.

Fossil of an extinct marine
mollusk (Ammonite)
and its living descendent

Notice the admission that inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?


"The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet."

Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water

"Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."

Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.

"Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."

Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.

"There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas."

Really.But what do they do ?

"When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"



"Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."


I wonder why ? funny stuff.

"Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."


Don't sound reliable to me.

"When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."



Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?

"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. "

Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.

"When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."

I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument

Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?

"There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."


Cherry picker.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein. You are getting more out there every second.

It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Check the fossil record.

Let me ask you an honest question how can you know what a crearture looked liked with less then 25 percent of the body parts ?

From that 25% I've got more explanation for it than you have for your Creator.

Let me ask you an honest question; how can you claim that "a Creator" is an explanation when you can't explain this "Creator"?

That is where faith comes in.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

post of the century!

Not hardly