Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[cbirch2]

YWC, you need to understand this. Pulling articles from biased websites is easy. Your going to find results explicitly trying to prove "abiotic oil" a lot easier than i will trying to google "biotic oil", because my theory has been more widely accepted for 100 years and people arent still trying to prove it. It may be possible that small amounts of oil form naturally. But that doesnt work around the fact that most oil thats been successfully mined is from known organic matter sources. That doesnt work around the fact that its possible for us to create hydrocarbons from decaying organic matter, things like algae.

Oil comes from decaying organic matter. Ill add this to the list of hoops you have to jump through to deny evolution.

 

[cbirch2]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

What's the point of your oil posts? Do they disprove evolution or specifically the aspect of evolution called speciation?

I thought you said you read the whole 9 pages.

Uh oh.

I did, I wouldn't have made the claim that thing I was accused of was a downright lie unless I'd gone through all 9 pages. It's a lie, but it's what I expect from a liar (Allie).

So please help me out, what does a few scientists having a different opinion on oil have anything to do with disproving evolution or the aspect of evolution known as speciation?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dr Spetner has taken plenty of classes genetics. That is a bad argument on your part I have taken plenty of classes on genetics . Many know about genetics and don't believe mutations are the engine that drives macro. Fact is macro only exists in ones mind or their text books.

If I asked you a simple question about genetics, something from a first college course in genetics, would you be sure and answer it for me?

Compare and contrast genetic drift from speciation. Too hard?

How many chromosomes does a chimapnzee have, and how many does a human being have?
(easily researched on the internet, so here is the SECOND part of the exam question)

What accounts for the speciation? When did it occur, and what factors were most likely involved? What proof do we have? When did we discover this proof? Which chromosomes are involved?

Do you understand the question you asked has divided the science community

 

[Dr.Drock]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

 

[cbirch2]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

What's the point of your oil posts? Do they disprove evolution or specifically the aspect of evolution called speciation?

I thought you said you read the whole 9 pages.

Uh oh.

No doubt this is a huge detour. You take me on massive detours to prove that dinosaurs existed in the first place; all the while allie yells about me not proving speciation and arguing with you about topics he doesnt think exist. I cant argue speciation if i have to validate every single aspect of modern science to you, down to the laws of physics. And if you wont answer my single question about those cats so we can get the ball rolling on the relation debate.

 

[cbirch2]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

 

[Youwerecreated]

What's the point of your oil posts? Do they disprove evolution or specifically the aspect of evolution called speciation?

I thought you said you read the whole 9 pages.

Uh oh.

I did, I wouldn't have made the claim that thing I was accused of was a downright lie unless I'd gone through all 9 pages. It's a lie, but it's what I expect from a liar (Allie).

So please help me out, what does a few scientists having a different opinion on oil have anything to do with disproving evolution or the aspect of evolution known as speciation?

No you people have locked in to oil being the result of dead plants and animals.

It actually came up because a question i asked the genius. Where did all the fossils go if life has existed on this planet as long as some scientist suggest. Because according to the bible the rate of growth 5,000 years ago we went from 8 people to near 7 or 8 billion. That means there should be fossils everywhere we dig that also means there was a lot of people that lived on this planet for 5,000 years can you imagine 70 or 100 million years ? that is just humans consider all the other organisms,it's absurd and its a strong argument against an old earth.

And it's old news that is not the case.

Differing opinion they are findinging it where there were no vegetation or animals your theory has been shot in the butt,get it ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

Well duh, anyone with a brain knows the only reason he did that was because of his anti-God agenda.

 

[cbirch2]

Dr Spetner has taken plenty of classes genetics. That is a bad argument on your part I have taken plenty of classes on genetics . Many know about genetics and don't believe mutations are the engine that drives macro. Fact is macro only exists in ones mind or their text books.

If I asked you a simple question about genetics, something from a first college course in genetics, would you be sure and answer it for me?

Compare and contrast genetic drift from speciation. Too hard?

How many chromosomes does a chimapnzee have, and how many does a human being have?
(easily researched on the internet, so here is the SECOND part of the exam question)

What accounts for the speciation? When did it occur, and what factors were most likely involved? What proof do we have? When did we discover this proof? Which chromosomes are involved?

Do you understand the question you asked has divided the science community

No, no actually. It really hasnt. its clear cut, there is no room for interpretation when it comes to human chromosome two.

"All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[3][4]"

The layout of alleles on our chromosome 2 is an exact copy of the combination of the layout of the alleles on two chromosomes of the members of Hominedae, specifically chimps. Chromosome 2 also has an extra vestigial centromere, other chromosomes only have one. It also has vestigial telomeres at its center[/b]. Considering telomeres are normally only found at the end of chromosomes, its presence in the center implies a fairly recent fusion of chromosomes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Do you have a clue to what presuppositions are ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I thought you said you read the whole 9 pages.

Uh oh.

I did, I wouldn't have made the claim that thing I was accused of was a downright lie unless I'd gone through all 9 pages. It's a lie, but it's what I expect from a liar (Allie).

So please help me out, what does a few scientists having a different opinion on oil have anything to do with disproving evolution or the aspect of evolution known as speciation?

No you people have locked in to oil being the result of dead plants and animals.

It actually came up because a question i asked the genius. Where did all the fossils go if life has existed on this planet as long as some scientist suggest. Because according to the bible the rate of growth 5,000 years ago we went from 8 people to near 7 or 8 billion. That means there should be fossils everywhere we dig that also means there was a lot of people that lived on this planet for 5,000 years can you imagine 70 or 100 million years ? that is just humans consider all the other organisms,it's absurd and its a strong argument against an old earth.

And it's old news that is not the case.

Differing opinion they are findinging it where there were no vegetation or animals your theory has been shot in the butt,get it ?

Yes, your story that shows some scientists view oil as a renewable resource proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.



You've won the debate.

 

[AllieBaba]

What's the point of your oil posts? Do they disprove evolution or specifically the aspect of evolution called speciation?

I thought you said you read the whole 9 pages.

Uh oh.

I did, I wouldn't have made the claim that thing I was accused of was a downright lie unless I'd gone through all 9 pages. It's a lie, but it's what I expect from a liar (Allie).

Uh, yeah. You know when you said that thing about the thing in the thing?

Cripes.

 

[cbirch2]

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

Well duh, anyone with a brain knows the only reason he did that was because of his anti-God agenda.

Dude of course. You think we mine oil and coal for energy? Pfft, yea right. Your brainwashed. Its just so they can perpetuate the evolutionist myth that dinosaurs existed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

We will cover that to,by the way are you not getting tired of me proving you wrong ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I thought you said you read the whole 9 pages.

Uh oh.

I did, I wouldn't have made the claim that thing I was accused of was a downright lie unless I'd gone through all 9 pages. It's a lie, but it's what I expect from a liar (Allie).

Uh, yeah. You know when you said that thing about the thing in the thing?

Cripes.

I'll simplify;

You claimed I said science disproves God, you can't prove it because I never have and never would. However I will state the exact opposite again, science hasn't and likely never will disprove any god or gods.

Now, will you admit your initial claim, and entire purpose of this thread, was wrong?

 

[cbirch2]

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Do you have a clue to what presuppositions are ?

Yea. Like thinking humans didnt evolve. If you think they didnt evolve already no evidence is going to convince you.

Are you suggesting that EVERY scientist of EVERY kind is just biased so they deny evolution? Thats crazy.

I do however think that every creationist "scientist" denies speciation. Thats the definition of creationist.

THEREFORE YOUR CAMP HAS THE PRESUPPOSITIONS

 

[Dr.Drock]

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

Well duh, anyone with a brain knows the only reason he did that was because of his anti-God agenda.

Dude of course. You think we mine oil and coal for energy? Pfft, yea right. Your brainwashed. Its just so they can perpetuate the evolutionist myth that dinosaurs existed.

That's why I'm here posting links to Berkeley and NYU websites to back up speciation and it's involvement in evolution, it's Satan driving me to do it.

 

[cbirch2]

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

We will cover that to,by the way are you not getting tired of me proving you wrong ?

Lol um when did you ever once prove me wrong? The only time i was ever wrong was the coelacanth, and not even for the reason you thought. I still dont think you understand that one.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Do you have a clue to what presuppositions are ?

Yea. Like thinking humans didnt evolve. If you think they didnt evolve already no evidence is going to convince you.

Are you suggesting that EVERY scientist of EVERY kind is just biased so they deny evolution? Thats crazy.

I do however think that every creationist "scientist" denies speciation. Thats the definition of creationist.

THEREFORE YOUR CAMP HAS THE PRESUPPOSITIONS

Who said humans didn't evolve?

They just haven't evolved from or into non-humans.

Again, arguing to an argument that was never made.