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

[Taz]

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?......

You're a soft christian as you don't believe what the bible says. You like it, but not that much.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

.
.

the christians have never reconciled with their past - they remain arogant by their rhetoric and despotism accentuated by their bibles ...

they remain everyone's problem to be solved.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Nonsense. There are two aspects of natural selection according to evolutionary theory: the compound, reciprocal aspect of (1) adaptation and selection pressure which are nonrandom and (2) genetic mutation or drift which is random relative to selection pressure.

And how do those two principles refute my post, above?

You implied that natural selection is wholly nonrandom. I just pointed out that is not the case.

 

[the_human_being]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

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 prescientific ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

It was the Catholic Church, using Aristotle's flawed work as immutable truth, that maintained (under the threat of severe punishment), the lie that was a geocentric universe. Man was God's most important work, and so he had to put the Earth in the center of the universe, according to church doctrine. But as Galileo is rumored to have said even as he was being punished for his 'heresies':

"It still moves", referring, of course, to the fact that Earth orbits about the sun.

Why are you telling me this? I'm well-aware of the history. See Post #289. The doctrine of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church is irrelevant. Taz, a historical ignoramus, thinks the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian, geocentric model was derived from the Bible.

 

[Steven_R]

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.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

 

[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.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

 

[the_human_being]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

Prove it mathematically, not with some atheist website nonsense. Use mathematics to prove it and then we can all understand it.

 

[Steven_R]

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.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

 

[Hollie]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

Prove it mathematically, not with some atheist website nonsense. Use mathematics to prove it and then we can all understand it.

Prove what exactly, mathematically? Do you realize that mathematics is not a central proof for biology? Proof for the biological record would be accomplished with the disciplines of the fossil record, paleontology, chemistry and the other biological sciences.

Why use silly card tricks to prove your YEC'ist fallacies?

 

[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......

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

???....and yet, I am not the one ignorant of what it says.....

 

[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.....

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

funny none of it is available for you to cut and paste to this board......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

dude, macro-fucking-evolution.....humanity having a common ancestor with portabella mushrooms.......that is not "just microevolution over the long term"......get some science.....

 

[the_human_being]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

 

[Steven_R]

Take some biology classes and maybe understand why the scientists are making those claims.

 

[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?......

You're a soft christian as you don't believe what the bible says. You like it, but not that much.

/shrugs......and you're a brainless idiot if you believe what you post.........you pay lip service to rationality but are a bit uncertain how it actually happens......

 

[Hollie]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

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.

???....and yet, I am not the one ignorant of what it says.....

Of course you are. You've demonstrated that repeatedly.

 

[the_human_being]

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.

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.

Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.

Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Of course you are. You've demonstrated that repeatedly.

sorry child, we've demonstrated you have no arguments and have to lie to remain a poster, is that what you're referring to?........