Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[Dr.Drock]

You fucking idiot. They found a new species. It didn't spontaneously erupt.

Allie starts getting really angry when science goes against her .

 

[cbirch2]

Yea im not sure how he can get out of this one. Clearly one species of tortoise diverged over time into two separate ones.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yea im not sure how he can get out of this one. Clearly one species of tortoise diverged over time into two separate ones.

As well as the fish example I provided.


When she's proven wrong, she gets really mad at the person or persons who proved her wrong and that's when she really ramps up the ad hominem.

 

[cbirch2]

Lol and neither of them have commented on the hominid skulls ive mentioned about 5 times now. Or the dozen other fossils ive mentioned.

OP thinks god created boxers as a separate breed when it was bred in 19th century germany...lol...

 

[Dr.Drock]

Lol and neither of them have commented on the hominid skulls ive mentioned about 5 times now. Or the dozen other fossils ive mentioned.

OP thinks god created boxers as a separate breed when it was bred in 19th century germany...lol...

It's sad some people refuse to change what they think when given new facts and evidence, but it's my hope that they don't spread this notion of fact-denying to the young impressionable minds of children.

 

[AllieBaba]

You fucking idiot. They found a new species. It didn't spontaneously erupt.

Are you serious? Why would i claim that? Wow you really cant follow.

What i/they are claiming, exactly, is that a species of tortoise migrated from Southern California to the Colorado River area and diversified into two species over generations based on which side of the river they inhabited.

"The enigmatic species from Baja California was previously thought to be a transplant from Tiburon Island, Sonora, Mexico, but turns out to be from California, or at least its founding mother was from there. "

No, they didn't develop into different SPECIES. Nor did the stickleback thing.

They became different SUB species.

Like dogs are a different SUB species from WOLVES, but they are still the same SPECIES.

This science isn't going over my head at all. You guys don't have the capacity to understand it, and what's funny is you think you're making sense.

 

[cbirch2]

You fucking idiot. They found a new species. It didn't spontaneously erupt.

Are you serious? Why would i claim that? Wow you really cant follow.

What i/they are claiming, exactly, is that a species of tortoise migrated from Southern California to the Colorado River area and diversified into two species over generations based on which side of the river they inhabited.

"The enigmatic species from Baja California was previously thought to be a transplant from Tiburon Island, Sonora, Mexico, but turns out to be from California, or at least its founding mother was from there. "

No, they didn't develop into different SPECIES. Nor did the stickleback thing.

They became different SUB species.

Like dogs are a different SUB species from WOLVES, but they are still the same SPECIES.

This science isn't going over my head at all. You guys don't have the capacity to understand it, and what's funny is you think you're making sense.

You fool....

"A 150-Year-Old New Species"

"For 150 years, Agassiz's Land Tortoise has been masking the existence of at least two species whose distributions are restricted to either side of the Colorado River."

"All of this meant that the population in Arizona and adjacent Mexico was an unnamed, new species, one whose identity had been hidden for more than a century."

"What was thought to be a simple problem in species identification turned out to be a very complex matter. Their investigations required forensic genetics and several other methods. In the end, they found it necessary to describe a new species."

"James Graham Cooper described a new species of tortoise from the deserts of California"

"The new rock-dwelling species, Gopherus morafkai, is named for the late Prof. David J. Morafka, a pioneer in tortoise research. "

Why did they say species 6 times if it was a subspecies? God damn your ignorant.

 

[AllieBaba]

You really don't understand English, do you?

The whole purpose of the article is that the original scientists FUCKED UP and identified two species as one, and they have just figured out the mistake.

Jeezus. Please please please try to focus.

"
For 150 years, Agassiz's Land Tortoise has been masking the existence of at least two species whose distributions are restricted to either side of the Colorado River. Prof. Bob Murphy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada and the Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and colleagues from the US Geological Survey, Arizona Research Laboratories, California Academy of Sciences, and Lincoln University have now started to unravel a Gordian knot. As if coming straight out of an episode of the TV series CSI, they went into the laboratory and obtained DNA data from the original 150-year-old type specimen, as well as from a more recently described species inhabiting the tip of the Baja California peninsula. The effort in forensic genetics documented that the named species was from California, and not Arizona as sometimes claimed. The enigmatic species from Baja California was previously thought to be a transplant from Tiburon Island, Sonora, Mexico, but turns out to be from California, or at least its founding mother was from there. All of this meant that the population in Arizona and adjacent Mexico was an unnamed, new species, one whose identity had been hidden for more than a century."

They aren't saying it just suddenly developed, nitwit, they're saying it was there all along, but misidentified.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You fucking idiot. They found a new species. It didn't spontaneously erupt.

Are you serious? Why would i claim that? Wow you really cant follow.

What i/they are claiming, exactly, is that a species of tortoise migrated from Southern California to the Colorado River area and diversified into two species over generations based on which side of the river they inhabited.

"The enigmatic species from Baja California was previously thought to be a transplant from Tiburon Island, Sonora, Mexico, but turns out to be from California, or at least its founding mother was from there. "

No, they didn't develop into different SPECIES. Nor did the stickleback thing.

They became different SUB species.

Like dogs are a different SUB species from WOLVES, but they are still the same SPECIES.

This science isn't going over my head at all. You guys don't have the capacity to understand it, and what's funny is you think you're making sense.

Then why are we having this discussion? We human beings are a subspecies, that's exactly what you fundie types spend all your energy trying to deny.

Humans are subspecies of the genus homo of which many other subspecies have since gone extinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)

You need to get together with the other fundies and figure out what your argument should be.

 

[Grace]

Yes... I know this is about why. But what I am trying to explain is that while I understand the why, you also have to realize that even Christians are ever learning, ever evolving in their faith.

Let's take a look at the word "Faith" for a second. Let me ask... would a person of "faith" demand punishment or persecution of people that they consider "sinners" in this lifetime, when there is a God that is very capable of meting out that punishment in the next?

I have to ask.... where is their faith?

Most christians I have met do not have an open mind about anything. Their focus is on what a BOOK says. A book written by man, for man. A book translated so many times no telling how many were warped to suit the political agendas of that day and time. A book missing many chapters and gospels because of the same political agendas. A book. Ignore the kindness and love Jesus came to preach. Ignore what he said. Stay with THE BOOK. Y'all worship that thing like the hebrews worshipped the golden calf while moses was getting some laws. But that story is from THE BOOK as well so how do we know the real facts? FAITH. And mine is very very different from most christians. Unless they are as open as I am to think 'what if" and question God and Jesus both but never act opposite of what Jesus taught.

Why would i have an open mind to things i find offensive ?

What is the difference in having faith in the bible and faith in mans philosophy ? The bible is much more reliable.

You asked a question. I answered. I find your attack of those answers from anyone, offensive. I find your opinion offensive. You find everything not about what YOU believe offensive. So why bother responding at all?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I specifically said a bad mutation cant take over a population because it dies out too fast. Theres nothing that says a good mutation cant 'take over' a population.

If a forest has mostly green beetles and small fraction with a mutation that makes them brown beetles, and then a fungus kills the trees, those brown beetles will probably grow in population while the green ones die.

Do you disagree with that? Isnt that a beneficial mutation, being brown, spreading throughout the gene pool of an entire population.

Wow i can't believe the things you say.

A harmful mutation can't take over a gene pool but a beneficial mutation can.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I specifically said a bad mutation cant take over a population because it dies out too fast. Theres nothing that says a good mutation cant 'take over' a population.

If a forest has mostly green beetles and small fraction with a mutation that makes them brown beetles, and then a fungus kills the trees, those brown beetles will probably grow in population while the green ones die.

Do you disagree with that? Isnt that a beneficial mutation, being brown, spreading throughout the gene pool of an entire population.

Wow i can't believe the things you say.

A harmful mutation can't take over a gene pool but a beneficial mutation can.

That's common sense. If you have brown beetles in a forest and one is born albino as a harmful mutation it'll be easily spotted by predators and killed and unable to breed and spread that mutation. If there's green beetles born to the brown beetles and the forest gets destroyed and only a grassland is left, that's a beneficial mutation, they won't be easily found by predators and those with that mutation will breed and take over he population.

Oh and 2+2=4

Figured I'd cover everything.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As was Max Planck, who developed quantum theory.

And Einstein, who scoffed at the idea that there was no God, and the creation of the universe was random.

Actually, Einstein believed in a Cosmic Watchmaker, which is to say, his version of God.

 

[cbirch2]

I specifically said a bad mutation cant take over a population because it dies out too fast. Theres nothing that says a good mutation cant 'take over' a population.

If a forest has mostly green beetles and small fraction with a mutation that makes them brown beetles, and then a fungus kills the trees, those brown beetles will probably grow in population while the green ones die.

Do you disagree with that? Isnt that a beneficial mutation, being brown, spreading throughout the gene pool of an entire population.

Wow i can't believe the things you say.

A harmful mutation can't take over a gene pool but a beneficial mutation can.

Lmao because the organisms with the harmful mutation die you retard. The ones with the beneficial mutation live longer.

 

[cbirch2]

You really don't understand English, do you?

The whole purpose of the article is that the original scientists FUCKED UP and identified two species as one, and they have just figured out the mistake.

Jeezus. Please please please try to focus.

"
For 150 years, Agassiz's Land Tortoise has been masking the existence of at least two species whose distributions are restricted to either side of the Colorado River. Prof. Bob Murphy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada and the Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and colleagues from the US Geological Survey, Arizona Research Laboratories, California Academy of Sciences, and Lincoln University have now started to unravel a Gordian knot. As if coming straight out of an episode of the TV series CSI, they went into the laboratory and obtained DNA data from the original 150-year-old type specimen, as well as from a more recently described species inhabiting the tip of the Baja California peninsula. The effort in forensic genetics documented that the named species was from California, and not Arizona as sometimes claimed. The enigmatic species from Baja California was previously thought to be a transplant from Tiburon Island, Sonora, Mexico, but turns out to be from California, or at least its founding mother was from there. All of this meant that the population in Arizona and adjacent Mexico was an unnamed, new species, one whose identity had been hidden for more than a century."

They aren't saying it just suddenly developed, nitwit, they're saying it was there all along, but misidentified.

Wow. Correct, the article did point out that there are two different species. Congrats on grasping simple logic. It also points out that those two species originated from a single species in Baja California. And that the two "groups" of descendants had genetically diverged significantly enough that they should now be considered two species.

The point is that one animal thousands of years ago produced offspring that now represent two separate species after generations of diversification. Idiot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I just proved how genetic mutations take over a gene pool. A change in the environment (over population, lack of food, introduction of a new predator, a flood, a disease, an ice age, a natural disaster, etc, etc) changes the definition of what is advantageous for any specific environment at any given time.

I'm on my phone this will be my only response until i get back home.

Well to start my view of a gene pool and your view of a gene pool are different. I view a gene pool is the breed or group as a whole.

But what you have shown is a deformed off spring with no new information both heads look alike there is no new information here. This proves my point. This is a loss or rearranging of the old information and it is still a certain breed.

This was the result of both parents having the same defective gene or teh rearraning of the information. It was not the result of a loss of information because as i stated earlier both heads look alike.

The only way this could become a breed to itself if it was bred to the others with the same genetics and you keep repeating it generation after generation like breeders do.

It took several different breeds to let's say make a boxer what happened to the information of the other breeds to make the boxer what it is ?

Why do they not have offspring that look like those other breeds ? I'll answer for you because the gene pool gets smaller. How can a gene pool get smaller without the loss of information ?

Well first of all, i didnt even post the picture of the snake so idk what your talking abut there. Your speculation as two why it happened it a totally uneducated guess, however.

But your example about the boxer is hilarious. The boxer was bred in 19th century germany from the Bullenbeisser and the Bulldog. The genetic information that came from the two parent breeds is mixed. Therefore the Boxer has about half its genetic code from the Bullenbeisser and the other half from the Bulldog. Natural Selection didnt just remove the Bulldog/Bullenseisser traits to create an entirely independent breed, thats ridiculous.

I thought you did post the picture, but anyhow i diagnosed it for you.

Another good example of you insulting me when you don't offer up an answer to a ligitmate question. Look i'll ask it again and see if you answer it this time. Oh this day is pretty busy for me so sometime over the weekend, i will gather all the questions you avoid to answer or tried answering them with theory not an answer from evidence and repost them.

The two breeds you said made up the boxer why do boxers not have any resembling those purebred breeds ?

What happened to the information to those purebred breeds ? Remember each parent gave the full information to make those purebred breeds.

Why if you're not breeding out information do they only have information to make little boxers ?

Have a good weekend.

 

[cbirch2]

I'm on my phone this will be my only response until i get back home.

Well to start my view of a gene pool and your view of a gene pool are different. I view a gene pool is the breed or group as a whole.

But what you have shown is a deformed off spring with no new information both heads look alike there is no new information here. This proves my point. This is a loss or rearranging of the old information and it is still a certain breed.

This was the result of both parents having the same defective gene or teh rearraning of the information. It was not the result of a loss of information because as i stated earlier both heads look alike.

The only way this could become a breed to itself if it was bred to the others with the same genetics and you keep repeating it generation after generation like breeders do.

It took several different breeds to let's say make a boxer what happened to the information of the other breeds to make the boxer what it is ?

Why do they not have offspring that look like those other breeds ? I'll answer for you because the gene pool gets smaller. How can a gene pool get smaller without the loss of information ?

Well first of all, i didnt even post the picture of the snake so idk what your talking abut there. Your speculation as two why it happened it a totally uneducated guess, however.

But your example about the boxer is hilarious. The boxer was bred in 19th century germany from the Bullenbeisser and the Bulldog. The genetic information that came from the two parent breeds is mixed. Therefore the Boxer has about half its genetic code from the Bullenbeisser and the other half from the Bulldog. Natural Selection didnt just remove the Bulldog/Bullenseisser traits to create an entirely independent breed, thats ridiculous.

I thought you did post the picture, but anyhow i diagnosed it for you.

Another good example of you insulting me when you don't offer up an answer to a ligitmate question. Look i'll ask it again and see if you answer it this time. Oh this day is pretty busy for me so sometime over the weekend, i will gather all the questions you avoid to answer or tried answering them with theory not an answer from evidence and repost them.

The two breeds you said made up the boxer why do boxers not have any resembling those purebred breeds ?

What happened to the information to those purebred breeds ? Remember each parent gave the full information to make those purebred breeds.

Why if you're not breeding out information do they only have information to make little boxers ?

Have a good weekend.

The information to make a little boxer is half the information to make each of those dogs. Do you seriously not think the boxer resembles the bulldog and bullenbeisser? its a direct cross between the two. It has a bulldogs face and a bullenbeissers stature. The information to make those other dogs are still there, which is why its face looks like a bulldog, and its body type looks like a bullenbeisser.

Your assuming the information to make a boxer is different from the information to make a bulldog. It is the information to make a bulldog.

Now your debating how genes work within a single organism, wow.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh wait, you're arguing to some other argument that has never been made again. I get it.

Nope im debating whatever "creation of new species" is.

Rockin' tortoises: A 150-year-old new species

How did two separate species of tortoise develop on each side of the colorado river? They look so similar, yet genetically they should be considered different species because at some point they diverged into two separate species to better survive in their environment.

Is that not evidence of a single animal diversifying into two species?

Can you point to any destinct new species that was the result of mutations that is not considered micro-adaptations ?

And when are you gonna respond to my post from DR. Spetner ?

He totally blows your theory out of the water, that you're stubbornly trying to explain to argue as proof.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol and neither of them have commented on the hominid skulls ive mentioned about 5 times now. Or the dozen other fossils ive mentioned.

OP thinks god created boxers as a separate breed when it was bred in 19th century germany...lol...

They prove what exactly?

Ever heard of eldridge and gould and their theory.

Why did they come up with this theory, because of a lack of change in the fossil record.

Did you miss that the coelacanth showed no change over the many years evolutionist said it was on the planet ? and they claimed it evolved. Yeah i trust the biologist that make such claims without proof.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Lol and neither of them have commented on the hominid skulls ive mentioned about 5 times now. Or the dozen other fossils ive mentioned.

OP thinks god created boxers as a separate breed when it was bred in 19th century germany...lol...

They prove what exactly?

Ever heard of eldridge and gould and their theory.

Why did they come up with this theory, because of a lack of change in the fossil record.

Did you miss that the coelacanth showed no change over the many years evolutionist said it was on the planet ? and they claimed it evolved. Yeah i trust the biologist that make such claims without proof.

You said T-Rex was a herbivore, the less proof you have the more you believe in these things. It seems the more proof there is for something (in this example, evolution) the more issue you take with it.