Creationists

[koshergrl]

Sorry, that won't work, troll.

It's working perfectly.

Feel free to continue with your enthusiastic affirmations of your unmistakably cretinous nature.

 

[koshergrl]

The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right—mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.

No, it doesn't, you idiot.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, that won't work, troll.

It's working perfectly.

Feel free to continue with your enthusiastic affirmations of your unmistakably cretinous nature.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right—mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.

No, it doesn't, you idiot.

End of discussion, name caller.

Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case for its theory.

 

[cbirch2]

Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.

Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.

Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.

You're amazing

How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?

DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express.

If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?

imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "TCGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".

And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species

 

[Youwerecreated]

Troll.

Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.

Troll.

Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.

When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .that is evidence of a designer.So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right—mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.

Scientist Arthur Kaplan

Care to share what exactly does the genome reveal to support your comment ? Which genome are you speaking of ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right—mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.

No, it doesn't, you idiot.

End of discussion, name caller.

Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case for its theory.

so that is why you believe the genome proves macroevolution yes they have,bit you think its proving Gods existence then no they have not done that. Before you make blanket statements about something you know little on you might want to research it before you make such statements so you don't look foolish.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.

Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.

You're amazing

How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?

DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express.

If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?

imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "TCGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".

And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species

Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ? That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.

 

[LOki]

When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .

Only if you first presume a designer.

that is evidence of a designer.

No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.

But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.

If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.

Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.

Savvy?

So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?

What evidence?

Or are you speaking hypothetically?

 

[daws101]

You are gonna have to forgive my ignorance on your slang.

"too" is proper english "wannabe" is proper spelling.
"gonna" is slang. your ignorance is curable

Wannabe is slang.

What does WANNABE mean? - WANNABE Definition - Meaning of WANNABE - InternetSlang.com

yes it is ..your point!?

 

[daws101]

I never said that my need to believe was proof.

That's all you. Talk about projecting.

The rest of your post is drivel. It doesn't make sense, it's just hateful nonsense.

you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
since when is fact hateful?
no you did not ,it's implied .
as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
but then again belief only proves belief.
it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.

it takes evidence for that.

Did I ask? I don't remember.

Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.

Moron.

i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.

 

[daws101]

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

fits all the criteria for beneficial mutation....

 

[koshergrl]

you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
since when is fact hateful?
no you did not ,it's implied .
as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
but then again belief only proves belief.
it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.

it takes evidence for that.

Did I ask? I don't remember.

Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.

Moron.

i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.

What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?

Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...

 

[daws101]

Did I ask? I don't remember.

Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.

Moron.

i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.

What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?

Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...

didn't use spell check...my bad!
if you understood the concept of real evidence as compared belief based thinking(magical thinking) you'd understand the need for empirical evidence.

Ok.... i'll bite, what is "your proof"?

 

[LOki]

i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.

What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?

Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...

didn't use spell check...my bad!
if you understood the concept of real evidence as compared belief based thinking(magical thinking) you'd understand the need for empirical evidence.

Ok.... i'll bite, what is "your proof"?

You're missing the point she's making; she needs no proof what-so-ever to hold her beliefs. NONE. There's no verifiable evidence upon which her belief is founded; there is no valid logic that brings her to her beliefs. The facts of reality are entirely immaterial to her beliefs. She has faith. That is what faith is.

Faith is belief held without any support or basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith is validated by the holder's persistence in maintaining their belief in the face of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--faith is literally validated by the denial of verifable evidence and valid logic.

This is why the superstitious, like koshergrl here, are always demanding that you "prove" them wrong, and why they are always disappointed when you merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support your belief. Denying evidence is like breathing air for these retards, but if you were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then you would have finally brought a real test of their faith--if they manage to maintain their retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but their delusional imagination, then they would "know"--they would finally have that certainty in themselves that they have in their magical imaginary friends--that they can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over their fellows.

In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to them, to koshergrl in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so their vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.

 

[daws101]

What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?

Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...

didn't use spell check...my bad!
if you understood the concept of real evidence as compared belief based thinking(magical thinking) you'd understand the need for empirical evidence.

Ok.... i'll bite, what is "your proof"?

You're missing the point she's making; she needs no proof what-so-ever to hold her beliefs. NONE. There's no verifiable evidence upon which her belief is founded; there is no valid logic that brings her to her beliefs. The facts of reality are entirely immaterial to her beliefs. She has faith. That is what faith is.

Faith is belief held without any support or basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith is validated by the holders persistence in maintaining their belief in the face of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--faith is literally validated by the denial of verifable evidence and valid logic.

This is why the superstitious, like koshergrl here, are always demanding that you "prove" them wrong, and why they are always disappointed when you merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support your belief. Denying evidence is like breathing air for these retards, but if you were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then you would have finally brought a real test of their faith--if they manage to maintain their retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but their delusional imagination, then they would "know"--they would finally have that certainty in themselves that they have in their magical imaginary friends--that they can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over their fellows.

In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to them, to koshergrl in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so their vain, mendacious, hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.

thanks, I understand the concept of faith.

 

[daws101]

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LOki]

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude. In her mind, you just "proved" she is right.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"too" is proper english "wannabe" is proper spelling.
"gonna" is slang. your ignorance is curable

Wannabe is slang.

What does WANNABE mean? - WANNABE Definition - Meaning of WANNABE - InternetSlang.com

yes it is ..your point!?

Look I rather stay on topic ,but you said it was proper English not slang.