Darwin vs DNA

[Youwerecreated]

That is a philosophical question, which needs to be debated in the philosophy classroom. Where you can bring whatever scientific evidence, do so.

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

The bible is supported by the scientific method?

Great. Then we can submit components for testing per the strictures of the scientific method.

Where should we start?

How bout answering the question trufully that is claimed by the bible for starters.

Do kinds reproduce their own kind ?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie the video I posted that you attempted to slander the speaker gave several examples of theories that use conjecture and examples of conjecture that is used to fill in the holes in the theory.

Like so many of the videos you post, the one hosted by Milton was laughable. Did you miss the fact that the video was produced by some entity called UFO tv? Apparently these loons don't really take themselves seriously. Any guess as to why Milton didn't find sponsorship by the National Science Foundation, Scientific American or some other respected science journal?

Further, Milton did nothing but offer stereotypical creationist commentary about inaccurate dating methods of fosill artifacts and those artifacts mysteriously being found in strata where he asserts they should not be found. As we see with so may creationist hacks, Milton has no formal training in the subject matter he self-qualifies himself to speak with authority to.

It would be a simple matter for Milton and those like him to publish their work and submit it for peer review. But of course, he doesn't do that. Instead, he preys upon people like you who are convinced that the relevant science community has gotten so much wrong because so much of science contradicts a 6000 year old earth.

You are simply lying now. You really should read his book as well.

I was convinced you would go running for the exits. Instead of addressing the failings of the creationist community to submit their claims for peer review, you offered a pouting, chest heaving denial.

Peer review is a wonderful process of confirming or refuting claims. The process can be ruthless toward those claims not subject to repeatable tests or failed methodology but ultimately, facts supplant fiction.

Can you address why the creationist community refuses to submit their work for peer review?

Any thoughts as to why Milton used "UFO tv" as opposed to a scientific journal to produce his video?

 

[ima]

Intelligent design is for retards and people afraid of the truth.

ID proponents hold degrees in all fields of science how can you say they are retards ? I don't even claim that about evolutionist even though they are wrong.

ID is believing in invisible superbeings in another dimension who pull all the strings. There is simply no proof of any such invisible beings.

That IDers hold degrees is no great surprise, we're about to elect as the next president a guy who wears magic underwear.

 

[Hollie]

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

The bible is supported by the scientific method?

Great. Then we can submit components for testing per the strictures of the scientific method.

Where should we start?

How bout answering the question trufully that is claimed by the bible for starters.

Do kinds reproduce their own kind ?

Kinds reproduce their own kind. Of course, that is broadly defining reproductive history and lacks specifics. in the limited framework of the comment, we might define that as stating the obvious.

So now I suppose we can move on and test biblical claims per the scientific method.

Where should we start?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Intelligent design is for retards and people afraid of the truth.

ID proponents hold degrees in all fields of science how can you say they are retards ? I don't even claim that about evolutionist even though they are wrong.

ID is believing in invisible superbeings in another dimension who pull all the strings. There is simply no proof of any such invisible beings.

That IDers hold degrees is no great surprise, we're about to elect as the next president a guy who wears magic underwear.

Retards do not get degrees in science.

Obama is not a retard either but I do not accept his philosophical views.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The bible is supported by the scientific method?

Great. Then we can submit components for testing per the strictures of the scientific method.

Where should we start?

How bout answering the question trufully that is claimed by the bible for starters.

Do kinds reproduce their own kind ?

Kinds reproduce their own kind. Of course, that is broadly defining reproductive history and lacks specifics.

So now I suppose we can move on and test biblical claims per the scientific method.

Where should we start?

Why do kinds reproduce their own kind ?

 

[ima]

ID proponents hold degrees in all fields of science how can you say they are retards ? I don't even claim that about evolutionist even though they are wrong.

ID is believing in invisible superbeings in another dimension who pull all the strings. There is simply no proof of any such invisible beings.

That IDers hold degrees is no great surprise, we're about to elect as the next president a guy who wears magic underwear.

Retards do not get degrees in science.

Obama is not a retard either but I do not accept his philosophical views.

Retards get elected president of the US, just look at GW Bush, and now a guy in magic underwear. And I would venture to guess that a very small minority of credible scientists believe in ID, because the two aren't compatible, one is about hard evidence, the other a hard lack of evidence.

So you don't refute "ID is believing in invisible superbeings in another dimension who pull all the strings. There is simply no proof of any such invisible beings."?

 

[Youwerecreated]

ID is believing in invisible superbeings in another dimension who pull all the strings. There is simply no proof of any such invisible beings.

That IDers hold degrees is no great surprise, we're about to elect as the next president a guy who wears magic underwear.

Retards do not get degrees in science.

Obama is not a retard either but I do not accept his philosophical views.

Retards get elected president of the US, just look at GW Bush, and now a guy in magic underwear. And I would venture to guess that a very small minority of credible scientists believe in ID, because the two aren't compatible, one is about hard evidence, the other a hard lack of evidence.

So you don't refute "ID is believing in invisible superbeings in another dimension who pull all the strings. There is simply no proof of any such invisible beings."?

You have proof you just prefer to ignore it.

 

[ima]

Retards do not get degrees in science.

Obama is not a retard either but I do not accept his philosophical views.

Retards get elected president of the US, just look at GW Bush, and now a guy in magic underwear. And I would venture to guess that a very small minority of credible scientists believe in ID, because the two aren't compatible, one is about hard evidence, the other a hard lack of evidence.

So you don't refute "ID is believing in invisible superbeings in another dimension who pull all the strings. There is simply no proof of any such invisible beings."?

You have proof you just prefer to ignore it.

Proof of an invisible superbeing in another dimension? Go for it, this should be good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Genetics is a science for the scientific classroom.

When you bring the science of genetics to the ID or creationist debates, that is for the liberal arts classroom. ID and creationism are not sciences.

That is a philosophical question, which needs to be debated in the philosophy classroom. Where you can bring whatever scientific evidence, do so.

I'll let you answer a simple question. Do kinds bring forth after their own kind ? you don't need to be a scientist to answer this question but science can be used to answer this question so that makes it a scientific question and answer. The bible answers it correctly. The bible made a scientific claim and is supported by the scientific method. So how is the bible not scientific ?

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You display that you are an uninformed man.

We worship the Creator. We do not let uninformed man speak for Him.

I have to disagree with you,you go along with man that has an agenda to undermine the creator.

Then you should stop typing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ask an honest question, and we will see.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that evolution is a salvation issue?

I agree that you are devious.

I'm not the one confused and can state the obvious.

By me asking you a question you are avoiding to answer ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That question is philosophical, not scientific.

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

The bible is supported by the scientific method?

Great. Then we can submit components for testing per the strictures of the scientific method.

Where should we start?

How bout answering the question trufully that is claimed by the bible for starters.

Do kinds reproduce their own kind ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Genetics is a science for the scientific classroom.

When you bring the science of genetics to the ID or creationist debates, that is for the liberal arts classroom. ID and creationism are not sciences.

That is a philosophical question, which needs to be debated in the philosophy classroom. Where you can bring whatever scientific evidence, do so.

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

The bible made a claim and it is supported by scientific research.

You might know this guy.

Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics

 

[Youwerecreated]

That question is philosophical, not scientific.

The bible is supported by the scientific method?

Great. Then we can submit components for testing per the strictures of the scientific method.

Where should we start?

How bout answering the question trufully that is claimed by the bible for starters.

Do kinds reproduce their own kind ?

Wrong.

Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ask an honest question, and we will see.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that evolution is a salvation issue?

I agree that you are devious.

By me asking you a question you are avoiding to answer ?

No,it has become an answer for those desiring a natural answer not having to believe in the creator.

Evolutionist believe there is no purpose to life why would they believe in salvation ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you made a claim from the Bible, so you must debate it in the philosophy of religion classroom.

Genetics is a science for the scientific classroom.

When you bring the science of genetics to the ID or creationist debates, that is for the liberal arts classroom. ID and creationism are not sciences.

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

The bible made a claim and it is supported by scientific research.

You might know this guy.

Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics

 

[JakeStarkey]

Genetics is science, but creationism and ID are philosophies for the liberal arts classroom.

That question is philosophical, not scientific.

How bout answering the question trufully that is claimed by the bible for starters.

Do kinds reproduce their own kind ?

Wrong.

Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics

 

[JakeStarkey]

See, you equate evolutionism with lack of belief in God.

You are wrong in the particular (I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior) and you are wrong in general, because you have not asked everyone who believes in evolution if they believe God.

Ask an honest question, and we will see.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that evolution is a salvation issue?

By me asking you a question you are avoiding to answer ?

No,it has become an answer for those desiring a natural answer not having to believe in the creator.

Evolutionist believe there is no purpose to life why would they believe in salvation ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just for your information Gregor Mendel was a creationist.