Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[Youwerecreated]

LMAO ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOUR JUST CONFIRMED MY LAST POST. We say things you dont understand so you just think were being confusing on purpose. wow. im just trying to explain to you how sexual reproduction works. For one, no one generation could possibly provide evidence against evolution. One creature looking like the parent doesnt mean anything at all. Havent you ever heard of gregor mendel? The genes you inherent (genotype) result in a specific trait (phenotype). The genes any single organism inherit from two parents is random, but the total probability of any trait over several offspring and several generation has a predicable probability. This is like highschool biology here.

What evidence do you have supporting your theory? You have none. Didnt you see my bacteria example about a beneficial gene? I cant even believe you dont think a beneficial gene can take over a gene pool, thats such a basic concept.

Oh and by the way,the explanations of the dogs was so simple and supported by evidence but it either went over your head or it made so much sense you tried to mock it. Let me tell how reliable genetics are,we own a grey quarter horse stud that is guaranteed to produce the color grey in all offspring he is retired now but he did that for over 20 years. So once quit being foolish and use some reason. Would you like to compare credentials and if not then quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

What does that have to do with anything? All that means is the genotype of the horse is homozygous dominant and that the gene that causes the gray trait is dominant not recessive. How in any way does that disprove evolution? This is simple Mendelian genetics here. Come on.

The evolution of family canidae is a perfect example of evolution. Dogs, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes, all of these things are different species. Theyre all clearly related.

Are you trying to say that since all dogs are of the same species evolution is somehow false? Idk about that....Thats just an example of diversification.

This is my last response to you until you address the mutation argument by Dr. Spetner and explain how a fellow evolutionist is wrong. Are you missing the point genetics are reliable in determining the offspring. Unless they mutate which is caused by the loss or rearranging of the information,not new information. I studied fruit flies that were that were introduced to radiation,do you know what happened to the flies ? This won't be my last response but once we cover this issue that's it until to tell me how the good Dr. Is wrong.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I didn't read your book (post) but from what I have observed, it is not the Bible itself that non-Christians have a problem with.
It is the acceptance and specific interpretations of some scriptures of the Bible and using them as a tool to further political agendas. Oh, and all the violence, prejudice & judgmentalism, hatred etc... that are also justified or at least rationalized in the name of God / Jesus.

Also in the name of science.

So? Why do they attack the bible if their beef is with humankind in general?

I guess you didn't understand my post. The Bible has been used to justify or even glorify, murder, torture, beatings, hatred, slavery, wife-abuse and wars.
I don't think the people to which you refer hate say, the Bloods for example. The Bloods do many of those things but they don't use religion to make claims that their actions are somehow justified or even righteous.
Additionally, the Bloods don't try to use the Bible as a means to influence politics or affect national policy.
There is no "Holy Book of the Bloods" that they use to tell everything they do or believe is "right" and everyone else is "wrong".
Thus, their anger is not toward The Bible. It is not towards "humankind". It is toward those that do exactly what Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Saduccees for, back in his day: Ignore the loving message of God and use religion to gain power, influence and justify hatred, judgmentalism and wrongdoings.

 

[Youwerecreated]

For the 18th time we know species can be altered, anyone who looks at dogs, cat, horses KNOWS that.

Quit arguing a point as if it's a real point.

So irritating.

You havent proved that at all you tard. And while youve been not proving that you've been ignoring every transitional fossil weve pointed out (austrolipithicus, homo habilis, homo erectus, eryops, the tortoises, etc, etc, etc).

Whats your evidence that speciation cant happen? Considering every biologist disagrees with you.

Just because you state it over and over doesnt make it fact. I dont think creationists get that.

Every biologist disagrees with me,you're funny. You foolish child,quit acting on emotion.

 

[AllieBaba]

For the 18th time we know species can be altered, anyone who looks at dogs, cat, horses KNOWS that.

Quit arguing a point as if it's a real point.

So irritating.

You havent proved that at all you tard. And while youve been not proving that you've been ignoring every transitional fossil weve pointed out (austrolipithicus, homo habilis, homo erectus, eryops, the tortoises, etc, etc, etc).

Whats your evidence that speciation cant happen? Considering every biologist disagrees with you.

Just because you state it over and over doesnt make it fact. I dont think creationists get that.

Yeah, that's what I thought. You ARE arguing that because diversification within a species occurs, that MUST explain diverse species.

And because that isn't a proven theory, you are demanding creationists prove it ISN'T true, instead of provdiing the verification yourself. In other words, you are trying to get us to prove a negative. Which is the last bastion of a losing argument.

What a juvenile load of crap. And you're pretending that creationists are *not scientific* if they don't accept this unproven theory as absolute fact.

Lol, at least I have the honesty and integrity to admit I'm taking something on faith. You're finished on this topic. Try to find something else to obsess over now.

And WHAT haven't I proved, you fucking idiot? I didn't claim to have proved ANYTHING. Cripes. Take a fucking break.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh and by the way,the explanations of the dogs was so simple and supported by evidence but it either went over your head or it made so much sense you tried to mock it. Let me tell how reliable genetics are,we own a grey quarter horse stud that is guaranteed to produce the color grey in all offspring he is retired now but he did that for over 20 years. So once quit being foolish and use some reason. Would you like to compare credentials and if not then quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

What does that have to do with anything? All that means is the genotype of the horse is homozygous dominant and that the gene that causes the gray trait is dominant not recessive. How in any way does that disprove evolution? This is simple Mendelian genetics here. Come on.

The evolution of family canidae is a perfect example of evolution. Dogs, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes, all of these things are different species. Theyre all clearly related.

Are you trying to say that since all dogs are of the same species evolution is somehow false? Idk about that....Thats just an example of diversification.

This is my last response to you until you address the mutation argument by Dr. Spetner and explain how a fellow evolutionist is wrong. Are you missing the point genetics are reliable in determining the offspring. Unless they mutate which is caused by the loss or rearranging of the information,not new information. I studied fruit flies that were that were introduced to radiation,do you know what happened to the flies ? This won't be my last response but once we cover this issue that's it until to tell me how the good Dr. Is wrong.

You clearly do not know what i mean by mendelian genetics. Genetics are NOT relibable for producing offspring under every circumstance. They are for ONE generation on a purebred organism; because that organism is homozygous dominant. If you breed that purebred with a homozygous recessive or a heterzygous organism, the offspring will not be purebred. And therefore the second generation offspring may not produce a horse thats the same phenotype as the original. That horses offspring will show traits in a probilistic way. The only reason the original horse will not produce any different colored offspring is because it will always donate at least one dominat allele, and its called a dominant allele for a reason.

Insertion is a form of mutation.
Insertion (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In genetics, an insertion (also called an insertion mutation) is the addition of one or more nucleotide base pairs into a DNA sequence. This can often happen in microsatellite regions due to the DNA polymerase slipping. Insertions can be anywhere in size from one base pair incorrectly inserted into a DNA sequence to a section of one chromosome inserted into another."

As for this genetics argument by Dr. whatever i dont know what your talking about right now. When i get off work (on supper break now) ill find the post your talking about and give you a thorough response.

 

[IndependntLogic]

[
So? Why do they attack the bible if their beef is with humankind in general?

I guess you didn't understand my post. The Bible has been used to justify or even glorify, murder, torture, beatings, hatred, slavery, wife-abuse and wars.
I don't think the people to which you refer hate say, the Bloods for example. The Bloods do many of those things but they don't use religion to make claims that their actions are somehow justified or even righteous.
Additionally, the Bloods don't try to use the Bible as a means to influence politics or affect national policy.
There is no "Holy Book of the Bloods" that they use to tell everything they do or believe is "right" and everyone else is "wrong".
Thus, their anger is not toward The Bible. It is not towards "humankind". It is toward those that do exactly what Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Saduccees for, back in his day: Ignore the loving message of God and use religion to gain power, influence and justify hatred, judgmentalism and wrongdoings.[/QUOTE]

Guess ya didn't want to address this post? I don't blame you. Tricky stuff.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think it's anything so coherent as that. At least not from what I've heard.

 

[Steelplate]

Allibaba and youwerecreated...

Seriously... why are you doing this? arguing ideology that cannot be proven one way or another? It really does not matter. This is the problem that I have with the "religious right". They want to argue semantics and rules... but when it comes to the heart of the matter, it's an afterthought to them.

The Heart of the matter is the MOST important part of our beliefs. Not how God made the world... other than God, who really gives a crap whether He made the world in 7 of our days, like the bible says... or 7 of his days, which could be millenia to us here on Earth? God is all powerful... he doesn't NEED you to defend him.

Faith is not trying to justify your religion. Faith is leaving it up to God to work things out.

In short.... I believe you have the whole concept of Christ's message wrong. May God be with you... but I really don't think the intention of his word was to argue with non-believers about the origins of our measly little planet. The intention is not CONTENTION, but one of understanding and rising above such pettiness.

But hey... it's a free country.. do what you want. If you feel like beating your heads against a wall.. far be it from me to stop you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why that is my question exactly! Why do non-believers insist on pretending science in any way disproves the existence of God? Why do they insist on bringing evolution into every conversation about creation? Why do they care whether or not Christians believe in the Bible, and why do they think their feeble attacks can stand against faith?

 

[catzmeow]

Why do they care whether or not Christians believe in the Bible, and why do they think their feeble attacks can stand against faith?

We probably wouldn't care, if Christians didn't use the Bible to justify encroachments on our freedoms.

 

[cbirch2]

I don't think it's anything so coherent as that. At least not from what I've heard.

Lol it was very coherent actually. The problem is that you dont understand what "dominate", "recessive", "homozygous", or "heterozygous" mean. Just because you dont understand simple biology doesnt mean im being incoherent, it means your uneducated.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why do they care whether or not Christians believe in the Bible, and why do they think their feeble attacks can stand against faith?

We probably wouldn't care, if Christians didn't use the Bible to justify encroachments on our freedoms.

Please list them.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think it's anything so coherent as that. At least not from what I've heard.

Lol it was very coherent actually. The problem is that you dont understand what "dominate", "recessive", "homozygous", or "heterozygous" mean. Just because you dont understand simple biology doesnt mean im being incoherent, it means your uneducated.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

I have studied genetics, I have taken college biology (I already told you this), as well as anthropology and archaeology.

Not only that, I bred and raised horses, and that's all about genetics. We do genetic testing. I know about dominant, recessive, homozygous, heterozygous. I'm not an EXPERT, but just from what I've seen here, I feel fairly comfortable in saying I know a hell of a lot more than you do, bozo. You have a little knowledge and think that makes you an expert.

And honestly, you shouldn't be calling people ignorant or uneducated. I'm pretty sure you haven't any more than a high school ed yourself, if you have that.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh and by the way,the explanations of the dogs was so simple and supported by evidence but it either went over your head or it made so much sense you tried to mock it. Let me tell how reliable genetics are,we own a grey quarter horse stud that is guaranteed to produce the color grey in all offspring he is retired now but he did that for over 20 years. So once quit being foolish and use some reason. Would you like to compare credentials and if not then quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

What does that have to do with anything? All that means is the genotype of the horse is homozygous dominant and that the gene that causes the gray trait is dominant not recessive. How in any way does that disprove evolution? This is simple Mendelian genetics here. Come on.

The evolution of family canidae is a perfect example of evolution. Dogs, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes, all of these things are different species. Theyre all clearly related.

Are you trying to say that since all dogs are of the same species evolution is somehow false? Idk about that....Thats just an example of diversification.

This is my last response to you until you address the mutation argument by Dr. Spetner and explain how a fellow evolutionist is wrong. Are you missing the point genetics are reliable in determining the offspring. Unless they mutate which is caused by the loss or rearranging of the information,not new information. I studied fruit flies that were that were introduced to radiation,do you know what happened to the flies ? This won't be my last response but once we cover this issue that's it until to tell me how the good Dr. Is wrong.

Lol are you serious. I've just read spetners argument and its ridiculous.

Although i dont think your fully understand it, ill explain. His whole idea hinges upon the idea that not enough information can be added to a genome to create a new species; or at least that not enough time has passed to allow that much information to be added to allow creation of complex life from a simpler kind. But that idea is proven false with simple math. Information in DNA is stored as nucleotides. The human genome contains 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides. A single prokaryote (the simplest type of cell), has anywhere from 1 - 10 million base pairs. Even if one single base pair mutation spread throughout a population once every year that change of information (from bacteria to human) still takes less time than the estimated age of the earth. And one base pair mutating in an entire population is a ridiculously low estimate, considering millions of bacteria would make trillions of new bacteria every year each with hundreds of single base pair genetic mutations. Thats a number of mutations so high i dont even have a number to describe, and i used an estimate of one. And that only takes into the simplest kind of mutation, single base pair insertion or deletion. No translation, no mutations of entire chromosomes, no chromosomes fusing during meiosis or mitosis, just the simplest kind of mutation.

I just proved the entire basis of that theory wrong with simple math

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh lord.

You are dim.

 

[cbirch2]

I don't think it's anything so coherent as that. At least not from what I've heard.

Lol it was very coherent actually. The problem is that you dont understand what "dominate", "recessive", "homozygous", or "heterozygous" mean. Just because you dont understand simple biology doesnt mean im being incoherent, it means your uneducated.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

I have studied genetics, I have taken college biology (I already told you this), as well as anthropology and archaeology.

Not only that, I bred and raised horses, and that's all about genetics. We do genetic testing. I know about dominant, recessive, homozygous, heterozygous. I'm not an EXPERT, but just from what I've seen here, I feel fairly comfortable in saying I know a hell of a lot more than you do, bozo. You have a little knowledge and think that makes you an expert.

And honestly, you shouldn't be calling people ignorant or uneducated. I'm pretty sure you haven't any more than a high school ed yourself, if you have that.

Lol then why havent you said one educated thing this entire time? I know one thing, YOU dont do any genetic testing. What genotype is your horse? If you knew anything about inheritance and genetics you wouldnt have claimed that your horse only being able to produce gray horses is some sort of disproof evolution.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh lord.

You are dim.

Why exactly? Do you not understand math? Do you understand what nucleotides and base pairs are?

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol it was very coherent actually. The problem is that you dont understand what "dominate", "recessive", "homozygous", or "heterozygous" mean. Just because you dont understand simple biology doesnt mean im being incoherent, it means your uneducated.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

I have studied genetics, I have taken college biology (I already told you this), as well as anthropology and archaeology.

Not only that, I bred and raised horses, and that's all about genetics. We do genetic testing. I know about dominant, recessive, homozygous, heterozygous. I'm not an EXPERT, but just from what I've seen here, I feel fairly comfortable in saying I know a hell of a lot more than you do, bozo. You have a little knowledge and think that makes you an expert.

And honestly, you shouldn't be calling people ignorant or uneducated. I'm pretty sure you haven't any more than a high school ed yourself, if you have that.

Lol then why havent you said one educated thing this entire time? I know one thing, YOU dont do any genetic testing. What genotype is your horse? If you knew anything about inheritance and genetics you wouldnt have claimed that your horse only being able to produce gray horses is some sort of disproof evolution.

When the fuck did I ever say that?

Are you high or something?

 

[cbirch2]

And i think this is a good time to explain my sig.

Imagine biologists find a new animal. One of the first things they are going to do is determine where it fits into the classification system: into what order, family, genus, and species it may fit. Theres only a couple scenarios.

A) It could be an entirely new species of animal, in which case biologists would have to determine which genus the new species is a part of. Since its a species instead of a sub-species, i would assume you would claim that the animal was created separately by god as that species (as opposed to having diversified from an original species).

B) It could be a subspecies of an already known species. In which case you would think (i assume) that the new subspecies is just "evolution within a species", and that the new animal was just a variation of an original animal created by god.

The fallacy in that logic is this: the decision to either create a new species for a newfound animal, or to simply make it a subspecies of a previously identified species, is totally arbitrary. Its based on how similar a group of scientist think the new animal is to others.

Tell me something. Did god create a creature that diversified into the two different creatures in these pictures, or did he create the two creatures separately?
http://tinyurl.com/3h46hq
http://tinyurl.com/3psq8ql

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll answer my own question.

Yes, you are high.

Thank you.