Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[the_human_being]

I suppose one might say that. I don't believe something was made from nothing without an intelligence creating something to begin with. It requires intelligence to make a paper airplane and that is a far cry from being life. If you can tell me from where the atoms or amino acids came from that was supposed to start life, I will listen. I do believe in microevolution or adaptation.

It's not only evolution per se but I submit that there is also an intelligence that holds it all together and prevents everything from flying into each other. Someone keeps order.

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

That's microevolution which I've stated twice already that I support. I do not support macroevolution. I've already posted the odds of both a single asexual cell and a four cell organism subdividing and mutating via natural selection and challenged you to disprove my calculations. The challenge is still open to you.

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

Yes just like they claimed just a very few years ago that all dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles. I don't have to prove anything at all. I'm as educated as most of your so-called scientists and probably have more of a mathematics background as well. At least you might look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is a huge difference between the two.

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

 

[the_human_being]

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Even if it were true that the Bible makes that claim, it is wrong. I find it ridiculous that modern people who understand the truth of nuclear science (reactors, bombs, etc.) could be so intellectually and even a bit emotionally retarded when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of that science: The fact of the regularity of nuclear decay. And the fact that at least 20 other methods repeatedly verify those findings. The fact that thousands of laboratories all cross this globe are performing these same tests with much the same results. Now, if those findings are wrong, it would have to entail the most elaborate hoax in all of history, and I think that only someone who is utterly delusional and possibly psychotic would believe that to be the case.

Have you personally ever made a calibration or even a measurement of radiation decay with a scintillator counter? I have. I have calibrated scintillator counters using Cobalt 60, U235, and Strontium 90.

 

[orogenicman]

You know...................if you believers are firmly entrenched in your belief that evolution is a myth, then consider one animal.....................

The humble dog.

ALL dog breeds, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, and all dogs in between are ALL descendants from one common ancestor.

The wolf.

All dog breeds can be traced back to them. It was because of selection and breeding by mankind that caused all of the different breeds to happen (and in only about 3,000 years).

It says in the Bible that man was created in the image of God, which means in some small way, we are supposed to be able to be like Him.

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

That would assume that there is a god that can do the breeding in the first place. What we know happens is that species are interdependent, but even more, that interdependency leads to selection. As I described earlier, ants and anteaters have been waging a war for millions of years, and the result has been the evolution of unique species (the anteater, and the species of ants they eat). Genetic isolation also leads to unique species. Many island species are dwarf species because a smaller size more efficiently utilized scarce island resources. So evolution can be explained as a natural process influenced by environmental factors, genetic mutations, and the interactions among species.

 

[orogenicman]

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

That's microevolution which I've stated twice already that I support. I do not support macroevolution. I've already posted the odds of both a single asexual cell and a four cell organism subdividing and mutating via natural selection and challenged you to disprove my calculations. The challenge is still open to you.

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

Yes just like they claimed just a very few years ago that all dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles. I don't have to prove anything at all. I'm as educated as most of your so-called scientists and probably have more of a mathematics background as well. At least you might look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is a huge difference between the two.

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

All evolutionary changes are adaptations, dude. Duh.

 

[the_human_being]

You know...................if you believers are firmly entrenched in your belief that evolution is a myth, then consider one animal.....................

The humble dog.

ALL dog breeds, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, and all dogs in between are ALL descendants from one common ancestor.

The wolf.

All dog breeds can be traced back to them. It was because of selection and breeding by mankind that caused all of the different breeds to happen (and in only about 3,000 years).

It says in the Bible that man was created in the image of God, which means in some small way, we are supposed to be able to be like Him.

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

That would assume that there is a god that can do the breeding in the first place. What we know happens is that species are interdependent, but even more, that interdependency leads to selection. As I described earlier, ants and anteaters have been waging a war for millions of years, and the result has been the evolution of unique species (the anteater, and the species of ants they eat). Genetic isolation also leads to unique species. Many island species are dwarf species because a smaller size more efficiently utilized scarce island resources. So evolution can be explained as a natural process influenced by environmental factors, genetic mutations, and the interactions among species.

Microevolution again. Adaptability. No one is disputing adaptability.

 

[orogenicman]

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Even if it were true that the Bible makes that claim, it is wrong. I find it ridiculous that modern people who understand the truth of nuclear science (reactors, bombs, etc.) could be so intellectually and even a bit emotionally retarded when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of that science: The fact of the regularity of nuclear decay. And the fact that at least 20 other methods repeatedly verify those findings. The fact that thousands of laboratories all cross this globe are performing these same tests with much the same results. Now, if those findings are wrong, it would have to entail the most elaborate hoax in all of history, and I think that only someone who is utterly delusional and possibly psychotic would believe that to be the case.

Have you personally ever made a calibration or even a measurement of radiation decay with a scintillator counter? I have. I have calibrated scintillator counters using Cobalt 60, U235, and Strontium 90.

Have you now? And I am supposed to believe you or even care because? Do you glow in the dark? Perhaps you'd make a great nightlight for a caver.

 

[orogenicman]

You know...................if you believers are firmly entrenched in your belief that evolution is a myth, then consider one animal.....................

The humble dog.

ALL dog breeds, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, and all dogs in between are ALL descendants from one common ancestor.

The wolf.

All dog breeds can be traced back to them. It was because of selection and breeding by mankind that caused all of the different breeds to happen (and in only about 3,000 years).

It says in the Bible that man was created in the image of God, which means in some small way, we are supposed to be able to be like Him.

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

That would assume that there is a god that can do the breeding in the first place. What we know happens is that species are interdependent, but even more, that interdependency leads to selection. As I described earlier, ants and anteaters have been waging a war for millions of years, and the result has been the evolution of unique species (the anteater, and the species of ants they eat). Genetic isolation also leads to unique species. Many island species are dwarf species because a smaller size more efficiently utilized scarce island resources. So evolution can be explained as a natural process influenced by environmental factors, genetic mutations, and the interactions among species.

Microevolution again. Adaptability. No one is disputing adaptability.

All evolutionary changes are adaptations.

 

[the_human_being]

That's microevolution which I've stated twice already that I support. I do not support macroevolution. I've already posted the odds of both a single asexual cell and a four cell organism subdividing and mutating via natural selection and challenged you to disprove my calculations. The challenge is still open to you.

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

Yes just like they claimed just a very few years ago that all dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles. I don't have to prove anything at all. I'm as educated as most of your so-called scientists and probably have more of a mathematics background as well. At least you might look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is a huge difference between the two.

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

All evolutionary changes are adaptations, dude. Duh.

That's it. Go to invoking generalizations when loosing your argument. I acknowledge that you don't know the difference. Accepted.

 

[the_human_being]

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Even if it were true that the Bible makes that claim, it is wrong. I find it ridiculous that modern people who understand the truth of nuclear science (reactors, bombs, etc.) could be so intellectually and even a bit emotionally retarded when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of that science: The fact of the regularity of nuclear decay. And the fact that at least 20 other methods repeatedly verify those findings. The fact that thousands of laboratories all cross this globe are performing these same tests with much the same results. Now, if those findings are wrong, it would have to entail the most elaborate hoax in all of history, and I think that only someone who is utterly delusional and possibly psychotic would believe that to be the case.

Have you personally ever made a calibration or even a measurement of radiation decay with a scintillator counter? I have. I have calibrated scintillator counters using Cobalt 60, U235, and Strontium 90.

Have you now? And I am supposed to believe you or even care because? Do you glow in the dark? Perhaps you'd make a great nightlight for a caver.

He's lost. He's turned into another Hollie now. They always prove chaos evolution when the lose.

 

[orogenicman]

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Even if it were true that the Bible makes that claim, it is wrong. I find it ridiculous that modern people who understand the truth of nuclear science (reactors, bombs, etc.) could be so intellectually and even a bit emotionally retarded when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of that science: The fact of the regularity of nuclear decay. And the fact that at least 20 other methods repeatedly verify those findings. The fact that thousands of laboratories all cross this globe are performing these same tests with much the same results. Now, if those findings are wrong, it would have to entail the most elaborate hoax in all of history, and I think that only someone who is utterly delusional and possibly psychotic would believe that to be the case.

Have you personally ever made a calibration or even a measurement of radiation decay with a scintillator counter? I have. I have calibrated scintillator counters using Cobalt 60, U235, and Strontium 90.

Have you now? And I am supposed to believe you or even care because? Do you glow in the dark? Perhaps you'd make a great nightlight for a caver.

He's lost. He's turned into another Hollie now. They always prove chaos evolution when the lose.

What, exactly, do you think it is that I have lost?

 

[MaxGrit]

Of course, dear. Like most thumpers, just make up the stuff as you go along.

Does she ask, "Why is that, Rawlings?"

No. Of course not.

Mindless Internet Atheist: The Problem of Internet Atheists

Yep. Hollie is really stupid.

 

[orogenicman]

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

Yes just like they claimed just a very few years ago that all dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles. I don't have to prove anything at all. I'm as educated as most of your so-called scientists and probably have more of a mathematics background as well. At least you might look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is a huge difference between the two.

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

Remember your anteater? Micro involves your example of the anteater adapting. That is what micro is all about, adaptation.

All evolutionary changes are adaptations, dude. Duh.

That's it. Go to invoking generalizations when loosing your argument. I acknowledge that you don't know the difference. Accepted.

Generalizations are important for understanding the big picture, and are especially important when they are true. You don't believe it is true that all evolutionary changes are adaptations? If not, why not?

 

[Hollie]

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Even if it were true that the Bible makes that claim, it is wrong. I find it ridiculous that modern people who understand the truth of nuclear science (reactors, bombs, etc.) could be so intellectually and even a bit emotionally retarded when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of that science: The fact of the regularity of nuclear decay. And the fact that at least 20 other methods repeatedly verify those findings. The fact that thousands of laboratories all cross this globe are performing these same tests with much the same results. Now, if those findings are wrong, it would have to entail the most elaborate hoax in all of history, and I think that only someone who is utterly delusional and possibly psychotic would believe that to be the case.

Have you personally ever made a calibration or even a measurement of radiation decay with a scintillator counter? I have. I have calibrated scintillator counters using Cobalt 60, U235, and Strontium 90.

Have you now? And I am supposed to believe you or even care because? Do you glow in the dark? Perhaps you'd make a great nightlight for a caver.

He's lost. He's turned into another Hollie now. They always prove chaos evolution when the lose.

You're science illiterate. You have only yourself to blame.

 

[Taz]

Fat dude quoted the bible passage that HE said meant that the earth was in the center of the universe. You posted it, you douchebag.

Look, everybody, Bob Ewell! Stop picking your nose, bucktooth. It's unsightly. The Medieval, Roman Catholic notion of geocentricism is strictly based on the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian model imposed on scripture via papal decree.

Moreover, you're talking about the physical center of the universe, dingus batus. Neither Lennox nor the Bible put the Earth at the physical center of the universe, dingus batus. Just how dingus batus are you? The Earth is the spiritual and soteriological center of the universe according to the Bible, dingus batus. These are not the same thing, dingus batus.

Don't be mad just because you're a bible aficionado, not a true bible follower. The bible says that the earth is the center of the universe, watch your own posted movie, you douchebag.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You're a Jesus aficionado. Nothing more. You cherry pick what you'll follow and the rest, well, it's nonsense but who cares, right?

actually, I think the "who cares" is best applied to your opinion about whether I'm a Christian?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

you mean intelligent design.......yes, of course.....and?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Right. Because the A&E fable requires humanity to be "created", magically *poofed* into existence 6,000 years ago.

Yeeeee haw.

an ignorant conclusion Hollie insists on clinging to......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

its a good thing macro evolution requires no support because science gives it none.......for example, you've never been able to demonstrate that a single celled organism can evolve into a multicelled organism, let alone prove it could evolve into a human being........now THERE is something they haven't been doing for 150 years.....

 

[Hollie]

Right. Because the A&E fable requires humanity to be "created", magically *poofed* into existence 6,000 years ago.

Yeeeee haw.

an ignorant conclusion Hollie insists on clinging to......

So, you really never have read your bibles. Not surprising. Like so many of the indoctrinated, you just accepted what you were told.

 

[Hollie]

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

its a good thing macro evolution requires no support because science gives it none.......for example, you've never been able to demonstrate that a single celled organism can evolve into a multicelled organism, let alone prove it could evolve into a human being........now THERE is something they haven't been doing for 150 years.....

Actually, there's a wealth of data to support that very thing - a single celled organism evolving to multi celled.

On the other hand, tell us about magical gardens, talking serpents and a 6,000 year old earth.