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

[the_human_being]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Genetics The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

.

just curious holy christian, when did Adamic man first write a novel ?

.

You like science fiction. I like Lord of the Rings.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You shouldn't think your phony "christian math" has shown anything but the sheer fraud that oozes from your creation ministries.

At least I can do math. It is apparent that you cannot.

You can do phony "Christian math", but that's accepted by only the weak minded and gullible.

 

[the_human_being]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..."

Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..."

And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet."

Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationist can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Hollie, you have posted for a month now and still haven't said anything of any consequence.

You're slow.

You're demonically insane.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

You're such a bottom feeding degenerated sliver of humanity you don't even own yourself.

Is that behavior jeebus approved?

 

[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.

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.

You shouldn't think your phony "christian math" has shown anything but the sheer fraud that oozes from your creation ministries.

At least I can do math. It is apparent that you cannot.

You can do phony "Christian math", but that's accepted by only the weak minded and gullible.

But you can't even do "Christian math" or even atheist math or even children's math.

 

[Hollie]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..."

Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..."

And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet."

Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationist can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Hollie, you have posted for a month now and still haven't said anything of any consequence.

You're slow.

You're demonically insane.

Could be. But you're still slow.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You shouldn't think your phony "christian math" has shown anything but the sheer fraud that oozes from your creation ministries.

At least I can do math. It is apparent that you cannot.

You can do phony "Christian math", but that's accepted by only the weak minded and gullible.

But you can't even do "Christian math" or even atheist math or even children's math.

Could be. But "christian math" is still a laughable joke.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Genetics The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

.

just curious holy christian, when did Adamic man first write a novel ?

.

This author of this article presupposes a common ancestry as he discusses the varying degrees of similarity in the genomes of hominids. Why does this similarity exclusively support an evolutionary common ancestry and falsify the a priority of a commonly shared genetic foundation for the morphologically similar creatures of a common Designer in your mind?

Answer: because you evolutionists are utterly unaware of the fact that you teleologically presuppose an evolutionary common ancestry in your interpretation of the evidence!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
- and if Adamic man appeared just 50K years ago ...

World s Oldest Stone Tools - Archaeology Magazine Archive

More than 2,600 sharp-edged flakes, flake fragments, and cores (cobbles from which flakes have been removed), found in the fine-grained sediments of a dry riverbed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have been dated to between 2.52 and 2.60 million years ago, pushing back by more than 150,000 years the known date at which humans were making stone tools.

who was responsible for the above tools, 2.5 million years ago irregardless their genetics ?

.

Pay attention: the Bible tells us that mankind is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old relative to the genealogy pertinent to the biblical narrative only. It does not necessarily tell us how old mankind is, no more than the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is.

 

[Hollie]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Now, as for the nuts and bolts. I didn't neglect anything. Is it so difficult to understand that perhaps the Darwinist's interpretation of the various evidence is skewed by a teleological a priority?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Start with the genetic evidence. What genetic evidence allegedly supports an evolutionary common ancestry exclusively and falsifies creationism in you mind?

Genetics The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

.

just curious holy christian, when did Adamic man first write a novel ?

.

This author of this article presupposes a common ancestry as he discusses the varying degrees of similarity in the genomes of hominids. Why does this similarity exclusively support an evolutionary common ancestry and falsify the a priority of a commonly shared genetic foundation for the morphologically similar creatures of a common Designer in your mind?

Answer: because you evolutionists are utterly unaware of the fact that you teleologically presuppose an evolutionary common ancestry in your interpretation of the evidence!

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- and if Adamic man appeared just 50K years ago ...

World s Oldest Stone Tools - Archaeology Magazine Archive

More than 2,600 sharp-edged flakes, flake fragments, and cores (cobbles from which flakes have been removed), found in the fine-grained sediments of a dry riverbed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have been dated to between 2.52 and 2.60 million years ago, pushing back by more than 150,000 years the known date at which humans were making stone tools.

who was responsible for the above tools, 2.5 million years ago irregardless their genetics ?

.

Pay attention: the Bible tells us that mankind is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old relative to the genealogy pertinent to the biblical narrative only. It does not necessarily tell us how old mankind is, no more than the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is.

.

mdr: Pay attention: the Bible tells us that mankind is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old relative to the genealogy pertinent to the biblical narrative only. It does not necessarily tell us how old mankind is, no more than the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is.

.

relativistically speaking you have not demonstrated a verifiable example of Adamic Mankind distinct among the vast physical examples prevalent world wide through scientific research available to all concerned that would date back any further than your earlier stated point of time ~ 50,000 years - the prevalence of modern mankind.

and worse for your indefensible position the variety of present day mankind represented by hundreds of different races, for even on the same continents ... unless you are specifically speaking about a select chosen few of a single race that are the only descendants applicable to the Adamic lineage whereas all others and all other beings in regards to your religious beliefs have neither Spirits nor an avenue to the eternal Everlasting, you still have not provided appropriate physical evidence for their existence. than maybe yourself ...

only by the scriptures you have chosen to abide irregardless their veracity in total as the sole source for your convictions can you come to any other erroneous conclusion is the proof against physical evidence for the futility of the biblical religions.

.

 

[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.

You are calling ME an illiterate moron lefty?

Where the hell do you get that?

Lol, you didn't even read my response did you? It's all there. Or is it you are unable to read? Probably both, you illiterate left wing nut job.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

God said, "Let there be light, and there was light".

Enough explanation for me, He set physics in motion, and the rest followed as He planned.

God's hand is everywhere in evolution.

Deism, the religion of the founders of this nation.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am an agnostic, I do not believe I know whether there is a diety or not. What other people really know, I cannot say, because I am not a mind reader. However, I do like the sentiment of this song.

 

[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?

Lol, you didn't even read my response did you? It's all there. Or is it you are unable to read? Probably both, you illiterate left wing nut job.

Imagine YOU calling me an illiterate left wing nut job! When have you EVER heard me say something remotely left wing?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think that the mentality of certain members of this board have dropped so much that the terms "left wing", "liberal", and other terms they use (that don't really mean what they say in the context of their diatribe) are harmless.

I mean................if you can't look up what something means in this age of smart phones and internet, then how lazy and stupid can you truly be?

 

[Taz]

Aren't "god's laws" called "commandments? And aren't there only 10 of them?

 

[PostmodernProph]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

one of God's more interesting creations......

 

[PostmodernProph]

[
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.

.

if it proves anything metamorphosis proves that the origin of butterflies by evolution is an absurd notion.....we've covered that extensively before......

 

[Hollie]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

one of God's more interesting creations......

Nah. That would be the blueprint for the cancer cell.....