Creationists

[JakeStarkey]

The Bible has a message for sure, but you have not gotten it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Bible has a message for sure, but you have not gotten it.

Feel free to point out what i'm missing otherwise move on because your posts are pointless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You feel free to point out what the rest of us are missing.

You state opinions, expect them in return.

If you have credible, objective evidence, go for it. Hint: your witness does not count.

 

[LOki]

No, there is evidence of an expanding universe ...

Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.

... and many have said it's speeding up how can that be if it was an explosion ?over time it should be slowing.

Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.

What reality am I denying ?

It's as if you just selectively pay attention.

What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.

If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.

 

[Mutantone]

DO you really think that one of Gods days is as long as ours?
Then where did the Fossilizes of bone become bedded in solid rock"
How long did it take Human evolution (as there) is the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, including the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and as a unique category of hominids ("great apes") and mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct, introgressed or extant. Examples include Homo erectus (which inhabited Asia, Africa, and Europe) and Neanderthals (either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) (which inhabited Europe and Asia). Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

One view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, ROAM, or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe.

Scientists supporting an alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to modern

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, there is evidence of an expanding universe ...

Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.

... and many have said it's speeding up how can that be if it was an explosion ?over time it should be slowing.

Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.

What reality am I denying ?

It's as if you just selectively pay attention.

What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.

If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.

No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.

Everything is flowing on planes uniformly,and to defy logic we have planets and stars spinning the opposite direction as to most planets and stars.

How can you prove the explosion is still going on after 20 billion years ? and that does not answer the question why it's speeding up ?

I selectively pay attention ok

 

[Youwerecreated]

DO you really think that one of Gods days is as long as ours?
Then where did the Fossilizes of bone become bedded in solid rock"
How long did it take Human evolution (as there) is the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, including the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and as a unique category of hominids ("great apes") and mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct, introgressed or extant. Examples include Homo erectus (which inhabited Asia, Africa, and Europe) and Neanderthals (either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) (which inhabited Europe and Asia). Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

One view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, ROAM, or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe.

Scientists supporting an alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to modern

en.wikipedia.org

Uh oh wiki as an authority.

Son, you're not telling me anything I have not seen personally. I have taken many classes in geology and have a degree in molecular biology and I use to believe the same crud you do,then I grew up. I worked in the field and saw it for myself the way things are interpreted from your side. At all cost it is to discredit any evidence that contradicts the main theory.

There are so many holes in the theory it's just a matter of time before many honest genuine scientists start speaking against the theory.

The more evidence we discover the less credibility the theory has. The theory is on life support.

 

[konradv]

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?

They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively. Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

The only difference is in your own mind. Micro leads to the macro. It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist. Evolution is a continuum. It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively. Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

The only difference is in your own mind. Micro leads to the macro. It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist. Evolution is a continuum. It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.

What is your proof ?

Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?

Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?

Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?

Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?

 

[LOki]

No, there is evidence of an expanding universe ...

Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.

Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.

It's as if you just selectively pay attention.

What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.

If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.

No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.

Really? Hmmm. Not that I keep current on the latest versions of the cosmological models, but last I looked it was still held that--generally speaking--everything is moving in all different directions, rather than in one general direction.

So, what direction is everything moving together in?

Everything is flowing on planes uniformly,and to defy logic we have planets and stars spinning the opposite direction as to most planets and stars.

How can you prove the explosion is still going on after 20 billion years ?

How do claim that I said "prove?"

... and that does not answer the question why it's speeding up ?

You don't do physics much, eh? If the force of energy of the "explosion" is still in action on everything (rather than everything just coasting on conservation of momentum), then that would mean objects influenced by that force would be accelerating. Yes?

I selectively pay attention ok

Yeah, you do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.

Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.

It's as if you just selectively pay attention.

If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.

No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.

Really? Hmmm. Not that I keep current on the latest versions of the cosmological models, but last I looked it was still held that--generally speaking--everything is moving in all different directions, rather than in one general direction.

So, what direction is everything moving together in?

How do claim that I said "prove?"

... and that does not answer the question why it's speeding up ?

You don't do physics much, eh? If the force of energy of the "explosion" is still in action on everything (rather than everything just coasting on conservation of momentum), then that would mean objects influenced by that force would be accelerating. Yes?

I selectively pay attention ok

Yeah, you do.

Here let's drive this point home about the geologic time scale.

Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Well this is it for the day have a great weekend.

Everything is going in different directions ?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...vKIndiALI5KTtCg&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQ9QEwAA&dur=120

 

[konradv]

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

The only difference is in your own mind. Micro leads to the macro. It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist. Evolution is a continuum. It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.

What is your proof ?

Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?

Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?

Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?

Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?

Which comment would that be? I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue. They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it. Your questions should be.

Why do some animals have denser hair than others?

Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?

Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?

The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.

 

[konradv]

No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.

Really? Hmmm. Not that I keep current on the latest versions of the cosmological models, but last I looked it was still held that--generally speaking--everything is moving in all different directions, rather than in one general direction.

So, what direction is everything moving together in?

How do claim that I said "prove?"

You don't do physics much, eh? If the force of energy of the "explosion" is still in action on everything (rather than everything just coasting on conservation of momentum), then that would mean objects influenced by that force would be accelerating. Yes?

I selectively pay attention ok

Yeah, you do.

Here let's drive this point home about the geologic time scale.

Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Well this is it for the day have a great weekend.

Everything is going in different directions ?

Redirect Notice

Sorry but that cite leaves a lot to be desired with regard to referencing of sources. Blanket staements are made without back up. Why is that, if creationism is so scientific and true?!?! You'd think that stuff would be trumpeted to the mountaintops instead of hidden!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

The only difference is in your own mind. Micro leads to the macro. It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist. Evolution is a continuum. It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.

What is your proof ?

Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?

Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?

Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?

Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?

Which comment would that be? I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue. They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it. Your questions should be.

Why do some animals have denser hair than others?

Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?

Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?

The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.

Nice evolution animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?

That is adapting to your enviornment.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What is your proof ?

Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?

Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?

Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?

Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?

Which comment would that be? I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue. They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it. Your questions should be.

Why do some animals have denser hair than others?

Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?

Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?

The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.

Nice evolution animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?

That is adapting to your enviornment.

Adaptation is part of evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which comment would that be? I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue. They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it. Your questions should be.

Why do some animals have denser hair than others?

Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?

Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?

The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.

Nice evolution animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?

That is adapting to your enviornment.

Adaptation is part of evolution.

Prove it ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Nice evolution animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?

That is adapting to your enviornment.

Adaptation is part of evolution.

Prove it ?

Adaptation is a part of the theory of evolution, look it up yourself.

Amazing that someone takes such a hardcore stance against something that he's COMPLETELY clueless about.

 

[Dragon]

We should distinguish between the idea of evolution and the theory of evolution properly so called. The idea of evolution (which is supported by empirical evidence that is very, very strong) is the idea that over generations, living organisms evolve new characteristics and eventually give rise to new species. The theory of evolution is a model in biology about exactly how that happens. The original theory of evolution as published by Darwin involved a single concept, natural selection, which is still a key part of today's evolution models, but they also include some other processes such as mutation and genetic drift of which Darwin knew nothing.

The evidence in favor of the idea of evolution is mostly found in the fossil record. The great majority of species of animal and plant that have ever lived on earth are extinct today. Also, the species of living thing that live today, were not around in the past. So we have one set of species living at one time and another set of species living at a later time. By one means or another, the species mix on the planet has changed over time. This is a fact, and any idea of how life emerged in the forms it has must accommodate that fact. The idea of evolution is an explanation of why life is different today than it was once, and the theory of evolution is a model of how evolution takes place.

That the species of life inhabiting the Earth have changed is a fact. That this means evolution happens (by whatever mechanism) is an extremely-likely hypothesis explaining this fact. The theory of evolution in current biology is a good, solid model of how evolution has happened. Here we have a hierarchy of certainty with regard to ideas associated with evolution: change of species over time (certain), evolution (virtually certain), the theory of evolution (somewhat certain although likely itself to evolve further).

If one is committed to a creationist model of how life emerged, that fact of the change of species on earth must still be accommodated. This fact is completely incompatible with a single, one-time creation. It is a fact that we do not have the same species of living thing on this planet that we once did; old species are gone, new ones are here. There is simply no way that this observed result could happen from a single creation.

The fact may be compatible with an ongoing creative process, in which creation is not a one-time event but something that is still happening. Such an explanation would still be inferior to evolution in that it is less economical, requiring more unprovable assumptions; moreover, it would probably not be acceptable to most creationists, whose agenda is to support the Biblical account of the creation, literally interpreted.

 

[LOki]

Here let's drive this point home about the geologic time scale.

Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

This thing is terribly misnamed. Let me fix it: Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation superstition

Unsurprisingly, it doesn't go very far before it engages in the intellectual dishonesty so characteristic of the superstitious:

In other words, uniformitarianism basically assumes that catastrophic events like the global flood never happened. Therefore uniformitarianism interprets all geologic features according to processes observed in the post-flood world, while assuming that no flood took place. This principle informs everything that any evolutionary geologist has ever written.

This page is usless for the purposes of having an accurately informed notion of what geological & paleontological sciences are actually about--but if you like to point and laugh at the intellectually disingenuous antics of retards, it's just ripe with material.

Well this is it for the day have a great weekend.

Everything is going in different directions ?

Redirect Notice

In time? No.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

Zing!

Are you saying a scientist can't write an article and it's peer reviewed and then admit he believes in God and creation ?

No son, many brilliant people of science believe in God and creation.

Oh I see what you did there. Here, let me try using your ridiculous argument techniques: "Are you saying the gravity doesn't exist because it's only a theory!?" Huh, producing straw man arguments in question form really lacks integrity.

But let's face it, you and I both know that's not what I said, and you're just misdirecting in your usual underhanded and morally bankrupt methods. And yes, many scientists believe in God. But few biologists believe in evolution. There are a rare handful of outliers, but the people who have actually studied the topic, especially if they don't have strong religious beliefs, always agree with it. Why do you suppose that is, when so many other bad concepts that happen to contradict the bible can be rejected?

I look forward to you answering that question with another question, most likely straw man misdirection.

We don't know what reality you're denying because they haven't provided any evidence of the alleged "reality".

They just say "what you say flies in the face of science!" but then refuse to produce any evidence.

Because it doesn't exist. And they're so stupid, I don't think they even know it. They go off half-cocked and don't bother to do the research...they don't think they need to, they THINK they're standing on the shoulders of giants.

It's just smoke and mirrors. Their own faith is so great, they don't bother with actually looking into it, and they think that should be enough for EVERYBODY, because they attach the word "science" to it. Except it's not science, and what they claim doesn't even exist.

You should probably stop using words you don't understand. Like "science." Or "research."

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

Yeah the problem with that is that all major biology books and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific papers don't actually differentiate between micro and macro evolution. Only religious nuts do. Who don't understand the topic. But still claim other people should read.

Let's return to another related topic that made you squirm for a while previously: Since you readily admit that a small number of mutations can occur via your proposed micro-evolution, how many mutations need occur before your macroevolution occurs? Give me a number for the cutoff. Is 100 mutations ok but 101 impossible? You tell me the actual defining line between the two. Not in "kinds" or "stuff" or "types" or even species, but by a number of mutations.