Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
he basic design of humans is highly flawed.the standard creationist answer will be because of sin.
they believe that in some fantasy past our bodies were perfect..
I find that odd as the basic design of humans is highly flawed..
if god wanted to fuck with us, why didn't he /she /it make most of us stupid.......?.......wait.... most of us are? ??
Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?
So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.
who is the you your speaking too?Just to help you people out that are being mislead by daws and hollies poor attempts at lying.
scientific law
Web definitions
A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
bullshit! Living fossil
Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an inaccurate assessment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cenozoic is because the coelacanth current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
[edit] History of term
Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
Living fossil - RationalWiki
no matter how many times you say it or wish it, it's still false .
How many times must I explain this to you ?
They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.
In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.
But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.
Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.
So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.
1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.
Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.
Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.
Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.
So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?
The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?
it's been explained to me by other creationists that god made the birth canal small so women would remember that sex is a sin......?he basic design of humans is highly flawed.Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?
So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.
Indeed it is. The female birth canal is an excellent example of that. It is so poorly "designed" that up until the advent of the C section vast numbers of innocent wonderful women and children, died in childbirth because the baby couldn't make the corner and get out.
I somehow find it difficult to imagine God making such a stupid error in His design.
you're going straight to hell!bullshit! Living fossil
Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an inaccurate assessment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cenozoic is because the coelacanth current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
[edit] History of term
Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
Living fossil - RationalWiki
no matter how many times you say it or wish it, it's still false .
How many times must I explain this to you ?
They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.
In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.
But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.
Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.
So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.
1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.
Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.
Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.
Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.
So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?
The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?
Yeah, isn't evolution incredible, amazing? Still, substituting god for "I don't know" will never reveal anything about nature. You have to live with "I don't know". And, most unfortunately, we will all die with more "I don't knows" than anything else. And what really sucks is there ain't no heaven where things are magically revealed. All there is is what you leave behind.
And life is a precariously balanced thing. There are more ways for it to go wrong than ways to go right. Every species that goes extinct will never be seen again.
wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?slapdick? you need new material and you can try and spin the facts all you want but you and many like you are full of shit.
THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Francesco Redi
Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it spontaneously gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.
Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Lazzaro Spallanzani
An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needhams findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur
For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzanis corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a nutrient broth, similar to Needhams gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealedleft open to the air. However, the curvature of the flasks neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
Rudolf Virchow
German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion (Definition: Rudolf Virchow, 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-knownomnis cellula e cellulaevery cell originates from another existing cell like it (Definition: Rudolf Virchow). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, His aphorism omnis cellula e cellula ranks with Pasteurs omne vivum e vivo (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis
Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researchers work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do soagainst all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).
Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, [T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).
What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018
then this statement: Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
is then proven true by what you just posted.
Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.
As a viable theory, biogenesis is as pointless and as dismissable as creationism.
You're are a fool.
Produce the evidence that refutes it genius.
You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you to support it.
your explanation is based on a false premise...bullshit! Living fossil
Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an inaccurate assessment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cenozoic is because the coelacanth current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
[edit] History of term
Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
Living fossil - RationalWiki
no matter how many times you say it or wish it, it's still false .
How many times must I explain this to you ?
They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.
In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.
But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.
Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.
So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.
1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.
Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.
Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.
Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.
So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?
The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?
by definition it's not valid.
wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?
then this statement: Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
is then proven true by what you just posted.
Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.
Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.
true as "real" science is about evidence the bible is not.....wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?
then this statement: Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
is then proven true by what you just posted.
Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.
Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.
he basic design of humans is highly flawed.the standard creationist answer will be because of sin.
they believe that in some fantasy past our bodies were perfect..
I find that odd as the basic design of humans is highly flawed..
if god wanted to fuck with us, why didn't he /she /it make most of us stupid.......?.......wait.... most of us are? ??
Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?
So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.
Teleologyyour explanation is based on a false premise...How many times must I explain this to you ?
They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.
In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.
But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool by natural selection.
Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.
So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.
1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.
Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years.
Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.
Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.
So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?
The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?
by definition it's not valid.
Do you have an example ?
wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?
then this statement: Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
is then proven true by what you just posted.
Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.
Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.
because evolution is not perfect just good enough..he basic design of humans is highly flawed.Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?
So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.
I asked you why ?
You're are a fool.
Produce the evidence that refutes it genius.
You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you to support it.
I can't because there is no evidence that refutes it,and no the claim was made by her.
