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

[BreezeWood]

.

.

the examples are plentifull ...
.

.

what is your equation for Metamorphasis

.

Metamorphosis is not an instance of evolutionary speciation, you buffoon.

illiterate: Metamorphosis is not an instance of evolutionary speciation, you buffoon.

no one has said the above is speciation - Metamorphosis is however the blueprint for speciation to occur.

the ability in nature for a Being to transform from one shape to another is readily proven / provided by Metamorphosis, the process of speciation when the Being over time sets in motion for a single instance the time accumulated information for a transformation to take place does so in the extreme case creating an entirely new species using the " mathematical equation " available in nature, the Metamorphic process for speciation.

crossing the void is the inescapable requirement for Spiritual Remittance to the Everlasting as Commanded by the Almighty to Accomplish Immortality - a form of Speciation also known as a Sabbath.

a perfect completion.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

.

the examples are plentifull ...
.

.

what is your equation for Metamorphasis

.

Metamorphosis is not an instance of evolutionary speciation, you buffoon.

Indeed. This one didn't even merit a response. He's almost as pathetic as is Hollie.

.
we are still waiting for your mathematical Metamorphic equation for natural existence ... and the probability for its fruition.

.

 

[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.

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.

Natural selection certainly is non-random. I'll say it again if you like. And your second part, where it says "relative to selection pressure" states emphatically that it is non-random, because selection pressure is non-random.

 

[Ernie S.]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

The subset of Conservatives who believe in the simplistic biblical version of Creation is amazingly small; like 1/10 of 1%. The vast majority accept Darwin and evolution.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

I'm telling you this because the doctrine of medieval Catholic Church on the geocentricity of the universe is entirely relevant since Aristotle's books were an infallible pillar of Catholic scientific dogma at the time. As well, it based some of its doctrine on the various biblical passages, particularly Joshua 10:12-13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10.

 

[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.

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.

4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

 

[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.

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

"If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases," he says, as he mindlessly and unwittingly goes on to arbitrarily preclude what cannot be logically precluded in the same breath: a divine origin. There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy! That's the baby talk of atheistic nincompoops imposing their unfalsifiable metaphysics as they conflate agency with methodology. The assertion that "God did it" and the process of deciphering how God did it via the imperatives of mathematics and the conventions of science are not mutually exclusive on the very face of things.

I have not shut my mind to any possibility! That's you all day long, not I.

Evolutionary theory rests on a scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition, and the science of the atheist necessarily rests on the wholly faith-based metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Science does not and cannot precede logic or the philosophy of science. You have been refuted on this point over and over again by me on this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis
​

The Bible asserts a methodological naturalism for science, not your delusional metaphysical/ontological naturalism. God exists. The logic of absolute objectivity proves God exists and that God is necessarily the very Source and the Ground of the laws of thought and is the sustaining hand of natural and moral law and the physical laws of nature.

You nose-picking atheists of magic and superstition do not own science. God laughs at you.

Science makes observations, conducts experiments, and gathers data. Then, based on that data, it formulates explanations. What you are doing above is taking a made up conclusion and then searching for evidence to support it. That is not only science, it cannot, due to its logical fallacies, produce valid results.

As for shutting my mind to possibilities, I don't actually. What I do is consider the probabilities and choose the mostly likely, most consistent, most evidence-based result. And bubba, I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

 

[orogenicman]

Case in point. . .

<rant snip>

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

Which means nothing. I'm not an amateur geologist. I am a real, degreed, certified professional geologist with 24 years of field and lab experience. Now that we are done dick-waving, care to explain in detail how the Earth came to be, how old you believe it to be, and on what scientific evidence you base your conclusions?

 

[Steven_R]

It's so cute seeing geologists pretending they're real scientists.





You're alright. When the glorious purges come, you'll be allowed to live. As a mere geologist, you'll be a second class citizen of course , but you'll still be higher on the food chain than a gender studies or poli-sci type. Equal to an engineer. Less than a physicist, but who isn't?

 

[PredFan]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

The subset of Conservatives who believe in the simplistic biblical version of Creation is amazingly small; like 1/10 of 1%. The vast majority accept Darwin and evolution.

Nobody gives a shit what you think. As usual you ignorant liberals cannot read or don't bother to read. If you did, you'd know that this thread was directed toward people who believe in Creation, not illiterate moron lefties. Go away.

 

[orogenicman]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

The subset of Conservatives who believe in the simplistic biblical version of Creation is amazingly small; like 1/10 of 1%. The vast majority accept Darwin and evolution.

Nobody gives a shit what you think. As usual you ignorant liberals cannot read or don't bother to read. If you did, you'd know that this thread was directed toward people who believe in Creation, not illiterate moron lefties. Go away.

If you didn't want us "evil lefties" posting here, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it in an open forum. Jeez.

 

[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.

4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.

I'm waiting. I showed you mathematically that it was impossible. A statement means nothing. Show me mathematically how it is possible. I'm willing to listen.

 

[the_human_being]

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.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

 

[the_human_being]

.

.

the examples are plentifull ...
.

.

what is your equation for Metamorphasis

.

Metamorphosis is not an instance of evolutionary speciation, you buffoon.

Indeed. This one didn't even merit a response. He's almost as pathetic as is Hollie.

.
we are still waiting for your mathematical Metamorphic equation for natural existence ... and the probability for its fruition.

.

It's YOUR claim, not mine. It's not up to me to prove your stupidity. You're simply yet another evolution myth person who cannot offer support for his own claims. We're used to it.

 

[Taz]

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.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

 

[the_human_being]

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Well, now, looky here. I'm convinced that the empirically indemonstrable and utterly gratuitous hypothesis of a common ancestry premised on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of Darwinian naturalism or ontological naturalism must be true . . . because some say so, never mind the imperatives of logic and mathematics. Biological history couldn't possibly be a series of creative events and extinctions over time, never mind that there is plenty of evidence supporting that conclusion. Science and the metaphysics of Darwinian/ontological naturalism are synonymous; therefore, evolution is true!

Oops. Wait a minute. The assumption of a common ancestry doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence, does it?

Because it was supposed to serve an agenda. A false agenda. Can't you folks put something up that is at least within the last 100 years? If your evolution is happening constantly, there should be biological transitional specimens lying all over your back yards. You shouldn't be forced to dig up bones from 100 million years ago, should you? Just the other night a covey of half-bird-half-man things were perched on a power line just down the road from my house. One of the things flew into my windshield and made a heck of a mess.

Seriously though, I led you into that one. I already knew what you were talking about and that it had already been reduced to just another extinct species. Perhaps though, it might serve you to research your arguments a mite better in the future. Like I say though, at least you tried.

What your creation ministries lack in science can't be made up for with conspiracy theories.

Yes indeed. Wasn't it evolutionists who murdered James Hoffa?

Here's yet another one for you believers in myths and fairy tales. Why Evolution is False

Hokey schmokes.

It's been a while since anyone has used the laughable Do-while Jones website.

What a hoot.

Hollie, you're really getting to bore us.

Did you really expect not to be the subject of ridicule for your laughable Do-while Jones nonsense?

Actually I had hoped to no avail that just once you might address the content of something instead of simply attacking the author or the website. It's the content that needs to be addressed if you refute.

 

[the_human_being]

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.

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

Just to clarify for you once again, I do not respond to you at all.

 

[Ernie S.]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

The subset of Conservatives who believe in the simplistic biblical version of Creation is amazingly small; like 1/10 of 1%. The vast majority accept Darwin and evolution.

Nobody gives a shit what you think. As usual you ignorant liberals cannot read or don't bother to read. If you did, you'd know that this thread was directed toward people who believe in Creation, not illiterate moron lefties. Go away.

You are calling ME an illiterate moron lefty?

Where the hell do you get that?

 

[the_human_being]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

The subset of Conservatives who believe in the simplistic biblical version of Creation is amazingly small; like 1/10 of 1%. The vast majority accept Darwin and evolution.

Please explain to me what being either a Conservative, a Liberal, or an Independent has to do with anything at all?