Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1809 Nov 10, 2013
Mitch wrote:
Dan from smithville you guys are funny.
Presented with facts you just get nasty.
Let's egret rude, vile and miserable to be around, carry on a conversation with. Then they will leave and we can declare victory
Dam, create me a simple grain of sand from nothing...not a beach. Just a single grain.
I'll wait.
Egrets are beautiful birds. Did you know that they are a heron. Herons are an old lineage of birds dating back over 40 million years ago. Unfortunately, there are few fossils of herons in the record. There are perhaps 50 heron fossils known. Pretty scanty even for birds.

What is wrong with the way I address you. You have been a complete when you post. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Use some of the sand up your butt if you want some. Try some prune juice.

My inability to generate a sand grain has no bearing on the theory of evolution. Since you race quickly to a straw man says more about the quality of your arguments than anything. I would wait for you to understand, but I don't have the time.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1810 Nov 10, 2013
Mitch wrote:
Really dan?
Did you read it?
Wrong again
You are late to the game. This article has been circulating for a while. Yes. I have read it.

It doesn't say what you want it to say.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1811 Nov 10, 2013
Gillette wrote:
Mitch, this is an article about a new finding that is not understood yet. It contains speculation about what it MIGHT mean to the present classification of human species, but no one knows yet.
it may turn out to be easily explainable.
It may turn out to be a Creationist HOAX. That would not be shocking, now would it?
Are you trying to tell me that creationists would lie and fabricate a hoax in support of their belief system that condemns false witness. Shocking. Truly shocking. Next you will be telling me there is no evidence supporting a global flood or that Adam and Eve were fictional representative first people.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#1812 Nov 11, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you show me the whitnessed proof of evolution.
Langkawi bent-toed gecko, witnessed on a generation by generation basis, the nice thing is that a generation is only about a year so very easy to witness and so being studied by science.

Yellow-bellied three-toed skink lizard is currently undergoing evolution alteration from egg laying to live birth and so being studied by science.

Italian Wall Lizards transferred to the island of Pod Mr&#269;aru in the early 1970s jave evolved in various ways, adapting to different diet, larger skull with heavier bite force. The development of cecal valves to assist the digestion of the new diet and so being studied by science.

The genetic evolution of Tibetans to survive in the reduced oxygen at higher altitudes is an adoption that is a recent as 3000 years and so being studied by science

Blue eyes in humans are a genetic abnormality resulting from the mutation of the gene alongside the OCA2 gene between 6 and 10,000 years ago that caused the OCA2 gene to produce less melanin. DNA analyses is currently being studied by science.

Pygmy three-toed sloth, their evolution from full sized sloth to approximately 1/3 the size has taken place in around 10,000 years and so being studied by science.

Cro-Magnon man, classified as human as you, you are their direct descendant yet their skeletal structure and cranium were considerably different than modern humans. Note that I study Cro-Magnon as a hobby so I am personal witness to the evolutional differences.

You want more?

However we know that as usual you will ignore this witnessed evidence in favour of your un-witness belief that your god did it by magic.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1813 Nov 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Institute of Creation Research? Oxymoron if ever there was one.
"Creation Research" = Here's the conclusion. Now find the facts that support it, disregard all other relevant facts.
Dan from Smithville

Savage, MN

#1814 Jan 1, 2014
The popular notion that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors took several heavy hits this past year—both from secular and creation-friendly research—confirming that God created man in His image according to Genesis. Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.

The foundation for those pillars started shaking when one set of researchers analyzed patterns of recombination in chimpanzees and compared them to humans.1 Recombination occurs when developing sex cells cut and paste sections of chromosomes. Based on evolutionary models, scientists traditionally assumed that recombination’s mixing and re-matching occurred in non-essential places on chromosomes—places where human and chimp DNA coding differs.

But the new study actually showed that recombination occurs right where genetic sequences between the two species are similar—the opposite of what evolutionary reasoning expected. How could this process have produced genetic differences if it operates where the DNA look the most alike?1

Further foundation-shaking occurred when another report found that epigenetic patterns on human DNA were more similar to gorillas and orangutans than to chimpanzees—completely counter to the evolutionary model.2 These epigenetic patterns help regulate DNA activity. If humans and chimps share ancestry, they should share characteristic genetic and epigenetic features, but they don’t.

Finally, when a new, more direct comparison of chimpanzee and human genomes revealed that they are not 98 percent but only about 70 percent similar, the first major pillar supporting a link between the species toppled.3

The beta-globin pseudogene was the second pillar to crumble this year, with new research results showing exactly why it can no longer be used to support the supposed human-chimp connection.4 Evolutionists long ago misnamed it a “pseudo” or “false” gene based on the belief that it was broken. Nature-only proponents argued that since both species have the same purportedly broken gene, it could only be a genetic relic from a common ancestor. That was before the 2013 study revealed its usefulness.5 Cells often access this highly functional beta-globin gene for the regulatory RNAs that it encodes; therefore, both human and chimp cells are using the beta-globin pseudogene for the same well-designed purpose.

Debunking the third and last major pillar involved refuting the longstanding suggestion that human chromosome 2 has a fusion site—supposedly a genetic scar that marks where two ancestral chromosomes fused into one. This allegedly explained why the chimpanzee genome has one more chromosome than humans. However, a new analysis found none of the expected tell-tale signs of fusion.6

The relevant site on human chromosome 2 should show much more genetic gibberish—the patchwork remnants of some ancient chromosomal collision. Instead, the region encodes a functional feature within an important gene.7

All three key genetic pillars of human evolution turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. The assertion of 98 percent genetic identity was wrong; the beta-globin pseudogene is actually an important regulatory gene; and the supposed chromosome 2 fusion site was never more than evolutionary beliefs backfilling a lack of data.

Results from 2013’s genetic research annihilated the idea that chimps and humans shared any kind of ancestor and soundly support the biblical alternative that God made man in His image. What will we discover in 2014?

SCIENCE WRONG AGAIN- kinda like the missing link?
Science is so funny

Savage, MN

#1815 Jan 1, 2014
The popular notion that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors took several heavy hits this past year—both from secular and creation-friendly research—confirming that God created man in His image according to Genesis. Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.

The foundation for those pillars started shaking when one set of researchers analyzed patterns of recombination in chimpanzees and compared them to humans.1 Recombination occurs when developing sex cells cut and paste sections of chromosomes. Based on evolutionary models, scientists traditionally assumed that recombination’s mixing and re-matching occurred in non-essential places on chromosomes—places where human and chimp DNA coding differs.

But the new study actually showed that recombination occurs right where genetic sequences between the two species are similar—the opposite of what evolutionary reasoning expected. How could this process have produced genetic differences if it operates where the DNA look the most alike?1

Further foundation-shaking occurred when another report found that epigenetic patterns on human DNA were more similar to gorillas and orangutans than to chimpanzees—completely counter to the evolutionary model.2 These epigenetic patterns help regulate DNA activity. If humans and chimps share ancestry, they should share characteristic genetic and epigenetic features, but they don’t.

Finally, when a new, more direct comparison of chimpanzee and human genomes revealed that they are not 98 percent but only about 70 percent similar, the first major pillar supporting a link between the species toppled.3

The beta-globin pseudogene was the second pillar to crumble this year, with new research results showing exactly why it can no longer be used to support the supposed human-chimp connection.4 Evolutionists long ago misnamed it a “pseudo” or “false” gene based on the belief that it was broken. Nature-only proponents argued that since both species have the same purportedly broken gene, it could only be a genetic relic from a common ancestor. That was before the 2013 study revealed its usefulness.5 Cells often access this highly functional beta-globin gene for the regulatory RNAs that it encodes; therefore, both human and chimp cells are using the beta-globin pseudogene for the same well-designed purpose.

Debunking the third and last major pillar involved refuting the longstanding suggestion that human chromosome 2 has a fusion site—supposedly a genetic scar that marks where two ancestral chromosomes fused into one. This allegedly explained why the chimpanzee genome has one more chromosome than humans. However, a new analysis found none of the expected tell-tale signs of fusion.6

The relevant site on human chromosome 2 should show much more genetic gibberish—the patchwork remnants of some ancient chromosomal collision. Instead, the region encodes a functional feature within an important gene.7

All three key genetic pillars of human evolution turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. The assertion of 98 percent genetic identity was wrong; the beta-globin pseudogene is actually an important regulatory gene; and the supposed chromosome 2 fusion site was never more than evolutionary beliefs backfilling a lack of data.

Results from 2013’s genetic research annihilated the idea that chimps and humans shared any kind of ancestor and soundly support the biblical alternative that God made man in His image. What will we discover in 2014?

THEORIES ARE NOT FACTS, AS SCIENCE SO OFTEN PROVES

THEORIES ARE WILD ASS GUESSES
Science is so funny

Savage, MN

#1816 Jan 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Langkawi bent-toed gecko, witnessed on a generation by generation basis, the nice thing is that a generation is only about a year so very easy to witness and so being studied by science.
Yellow-bellied three-toed skink lizard is currently undergoing evolution alteration from egg laying to live birth and so being studied by science.
Italian Wall Lizards transferred to the island of Pod Mr&#269;aru in the early 1970s jave evolved in various ways, adapting to different diet, larger skull with heavier bite force. The development of cecal valves to assist the digestion of the new diet and so being studied by science.
The genetic evolution of Tibetans to survive in the reduced oxygen at higher altitudes is an adoption that is a recent as 3000 years and so being studied by science
Blue eyes in humans are a genetic abnormality resulting from the mutation of the gene alongside the OCA2 gene between 6 and 10,000 years ago that caused the OCA2 gene to produce less melanin. DNA analyses is currently being studied by science.
Pygmy three-toed sloth, their evolution from full sized sloth to approximately 1/3 the size has taken place in around 10,000 years and so being studied by science.
Cro-Magnon man, classified as human as you, you are their direct descendant yet their skeletal structure and cranium were considerably different than modern humans. Note that I study Cro-Magnon as a hobby so I am personal witness to the evolutional differences.
You want more?
However we know that as usual you will ignore this witnessed evidence in favour of your un-witness belief that your god did it by magic.
So your have proof of a lizzard, who witnessed human evolution? It's your rule
Science is so funny

Savage, MN

#1817 Jan 1, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Are you trying to tell me that creationists would lie and fabricate a hoax in support of their belief system that condemns false witness. Shocking. Truly shocking. Next you will be telling me there is no evidence supporting a global flood or that Adam and Eve were fictional representative first people.
So once again a WILD ASS GUESS

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1818 Jan 1, 2014
Dan from Smithville wrote:
The popular notion that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors took several heavy hits this past year—both from secular and creation-friendly research—confirming that God created man in His image according to Genesis. Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
The foundation for those pillars started shaking when one set of researchers analyzed patterns of recombination in chimpanzees and compared them to humans.1 Recombination occurs when developing sex cells cut and paste sections of chromosomes. Based on evolutionary models, scientists traditionally assumed that recombination’s mixing and re-matching occurred in non-essential places on chromosomes—places where human and chimp DNA coding differs.
But the new study actually showed that recombination occurs right where genetic sequences between the two species are similar—the opposite of what evolutionary reasoning expected. How could this process have produced genetic differences if it operates where the DNA look the most alike?1
Further foundation-shaking occurred when another report found that epigenetic patterns on human DNA were more similar to gorillas and orangutans than to chimpanzees—completely counter to the evolutionary model.2 These epigenetic patterns help regulate DNA activity. If humans and chimps share ancestry, they should share characteristic genetic and epigenetic features, but they don’t.
Finally, when a new, more direct comparison of chimpanzee and human genomes revealed that they are not 98 percent but only about 70 percent similar, the first major pillar supporting a link between the species toppled.3
The beta-globin pseudogene was the second pillar to crumble this year, with new research results showing exactly why it can no longer be used to support the supposed human-chimp connection.4 Evolutionists long ago misnamed it a “pseudo” or “false” gene based on the belief that it was broken. Nature-only proponents argued that since both species have the same purportedly broken gene, it could only be a genetic relic from a common ancestor. That was before the 2013 study revealed its usefulness.5 Cells often access this highly functional beta-globin gene for the regulatory RNAs that it encodes; therefore, both human and chimp cells are using the beta-globin pseudogene for the same well-designed purpose.
Debunking the third and last major pillar involved refuting the longstanding suggestion that human chromosome 2 has a fusion site—supposedly a genetic scar that marks where two ancestral chromosomes fused into one. This allegedly explained why the chimpanzee genome has one more chromosome than humans. However, a new analysis found none of the expected tell-tale signs of fusion.6
The relevant site on human chromosome 2 should show much more genetic gibberish—the patchwork remnants of some ancient chromosomal collision. Instead, the region encodes a functional feature within an important gene.7
All three key genetic pillars of human evolution turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. The assertion of 98 percent genetic identity was wrong; the beta-globin pseudogene is actually an important regulatory gene; and the supposed chromosome 2 fusion site was never more than evolutionary beliefs backfilling a lack of data.
Results from 2013’s genetic research annihilated the idea that chimps and humans shared any kind of ancestor and soundly support the biblical alternative that God made man in His image. What will we discover in 2014?
SCIENCE WRONG AGAIN- kinda like the missing link?
B-Tsar is this you? You nut you. Posting this nonsense propaganda instead of your own opinions of science. I forgot, you don't understand science, so you have no opinion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1819 Jan 2, 2014
Science is so funny wrote:
THEORIES ARE WILD ASS GUESSES
Congrats, you just informed everyone that you're clueless about science.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#1820 Jan 2, 2014
Science is so funny wrote:
<quoted text>
So your have proof of a lizzard, who witnessed human evolution? It's your rule
So you have problems with commas?

I guess education is not at it’s best where you come from
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1821 Feb 6, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Egrets are beautiful birds. Did you know that they are a heron. Herons are an old lineage of birds dating back over 40 million years ago. Unfortunately, there are few fossils of herons in the record. There are perhaps 50 heron fossils known. Pretty scanty even for birds.
What is wrong with the way I address you. You have been a complete when you post. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Use some of the sand up your butt if you want some. Try some prune juice.
My inability to generate a sand grain has no bearing on the theory of evolution. Since you race quickly to a straw man says more about the quality of your arguments than anything. I would wait for you to understand, but I don't have the time.
And which source did you use to date the fossils, there are many, and if all are used on the same rock, they all produce different ages...

How can that be...? Do you choose one to support your faith dan?
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1822 Feb 6, 2014
Nye tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. However, we know that there is a huge amount of variability in the human race, and many of the skulls in Nye’s graphic were undoubtedly within that range. For more information about how creationists interpret this evidence, see our Anthropology Q&A.
Nye noted that there are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia. However, absent catastrophic, rapid burial, fossilization of a land creature would be a rare event; thus, lions roamed what is now Israel in historical times, but no lion fossils have ever been found there. In addition, marsupial fossils are actually a huge problem for evolutionists, because their fossils are not in Australia, but in Europe and South America. See Biogeography.
Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. The animals which went on the ark only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible.
The Ark was claimed to be too big to be made from wood, yet too small to fit all the animals required. However creationists have answered these challenges, see Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers.
Nye claims that evolutionists made the prediction that there would be an intermediate species between fish and tetrapods, and that Tiktaalik fills this gap. However, footprints from a tetrapod were found in a layer dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik, so the intermediary cannot be younger than what it gives rise to. See Is the famous fish-fossil finished?
Nye claims that sexual reproduction arose because it granted superior immunity to disease. However, an explanation of how something is beneficial is not the same as explaining how it came to be in the first place, and this is a common fallacy brought up by evolutionists. It doesn’t matter how beneficial something is, you still need a mechanism to explain how it came to be in the first place, and that is a huge problem for evolution. See Episode 5: Why Sex?
Nye seemed to misunderstand a key creationist argument when he claimed on multiple occasions (even after Ham corrected him), that creationists think that natural laws were different in the past. However, biblical creationists actually think that natural laws are constant, describing how the God of order upholds His creation (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33). Yet, this same God has added to nature at special times as revealed in Scripture, contrary to uniformitarian dogma. The biblical god is not capricious like the pagan gods. Actually, it's Nye who can't derive the constancy of natural laws from his atheistic faith. See also Miracles and science.

Looks like bill should stick to kid shows
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1823 Feb 6, 2014
Nye celebrates the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which he believes to be a successful prediction for the Big Bang and billions of years of history. However, cosmic microwave background radiation is actually a huge problem for the Big Bang model; see Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. There has been years of work in creation cosmology; for more information see Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers.
Nye appeals to radiometric dating, specifically rubidium/strontium, as evidence supporting billions of years. However, different dating methods give different dates for the same rocks, and some dating methods cap the age of the earth at thousands of years, so scientists must pick whichever dating method agrees with their presupposition. Ham gave a slide with a list of such methods; a similar list appears at Age of the earth.

It appears your people do a lot of guessing that can easily debunked.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1824 Feb 6, 2014
Mitch wrote:
Nye celebrates the discovery....
Mitch, it's obvious you copy/pasted this from http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

Please select your best, slam-dunk argument and present it here.
We will show you why it is incorrect, and that the Theory of Evolution is still the ONLY valid, scientific answer for question of the diversity of life on earth.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1825 Feb 6, 2014
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
And which source did you use to date the fossils, there are many, and if all are used on the same rock, they all produce different ages...
How can that be...? Do you choose one to support your faith dan?
Mitch, you don't know squat about science do you. The different methods of radiologic data support each other. They don't produce radically different ages unless their is some known confounding reason.

My faith, I am Methodist, so the Bible. I just don't read it literally. I am not an idiot.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1826 Feb 6, 2014
Science is so funny wrote:
<quoted text>
So once again a WILD ASS GUESS
Not hardly Mitch. It is done on here by creationists all the time.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1827 Feb 6, 2014
Dan from Smithville wrote:
The popular notion that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors took several heavy hits this past year—both from secular and creation-friendly research—confirming that God created man in His image according to Genesis. Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
The foundation for those pillars started shaking when one set of researchers analyzed patterns of recombination in chimpanzees and compared them to humans.1 Recombination occurs when developing sex cells cut and paste sections of chromosomes. Based on evolutionary models, scientists traditionally assumed that recombination’s mixing and re-matching occurred in non-essential places on chromosomes—places where human and chimp DNA coding differs.
But the new study actually showed that recombination occurs right where genetic sequences between the two species are similar—the opposite of what evolutionary reasoning expected. How could this process have produced genetic differences if it operates where the DNA look the most alike?1
Further foundation-shaking occurred when another report found that epigenetic patterns on human DNA were more similar to gorillas and orangutans than to chimpanzees—completely counter to the evolutionary model.2 These epigenetic patterns help regulate DNA activity. If humans and chimps share ancestry, they should share characteristic genetic and epigenetic features, but they don’t.
Finally, when a new, more direct comparison of chimpanzee and human genomes revealed that they are not 98 percent but only about 70 percent similar, the first major pillar supporting a link between the species toppled.3
The beta-globin pseudogene was the second pillar to crumble this year, with new research results showing exactly why it can no longer be used to support the supposed human-chimp connection.4 Evolutionists long ago misnamed it a “pseudo” or “false” gene based on the belief that it was broken. Nature-only proponents argued that since both species have the same purportedly broken gene, it could only be a genetic relic from a common ancestor. That was before the 2013 study revealed its usefulness.5 Cells often access this highly functional beta-globin gene for the regulatory RNAs that it encodes; therefore, both human and chimp cells are using the beta-globin pseudogene for the same well-designed purpose.
Debunking the third and last major pillar involved refuting the longstanding suggestion that human chromosome 2 has a fusion site—supposedly a genetic scar that marks where two ancestral chromosomes fused into one. This allegedly explained why the chimpanzee genome has one more chromosome than humans. However, a new analysis found none of the expected tell-tale signs of fusion.6
The relevant site on human chromosome 2 should show much more genetic gibberish—the patchwork remnants of some ancient chromosomal collision. Instead, the region encodes a functional feature within an important gene.7
All three key genetic pillars of human evolution turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. The assertion of 98 percent genetic identity was wrong; the beta-globin pseudogene is actually an important regulatory gene; and the supposed chromosome 2 fusion site was never more than evolutionary beliefs backfilling a lack of data.
Results from 2013’s genetic research annihilated the idea that chimps and humans shared any kind of ancestor and soundly support the biblical alternative that God made man in His image. What will we discover in 2014?
SCIENCE WRONG AGAIN- kinda like the missing link?
Mitch, it is clear I have pissed you off. Your assumption of my identity is evidence that I have gotten to you. I feel good about that. Thank you for confirming it.

Human evolution still stands. You have just misunderstood the meaning of those reports. Of course you don't understand science and aren't that bright, so no surprise there.
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1828 Feb 6, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitch, it's obvious you copy/pasted this from http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate
Please select your best, slam-dunk argument and present it here.
We will show you why it is incorrect, and that the Theory of Evolution is still the ONLY valid, scientific answer for question of the diversity of life on earth.
Kong, do you miss Katie, her hand up your as- you little puppet you

Tell me why the different forms of determining age of an item, if applied to one item, produces different ages of that item?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 35 min Samuel Patre 87,475
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 166,362
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 10 hr Simon 5,820
What's your religion? 14 hr 15th Dalai Lama 772
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Wed Tom Honda 1,825
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web