It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#105697 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
...we get laughed at.
Loudly and often.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105698 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
Continued:
<quoted text>
Your BLATANT racism aside, you have provided zero support and the claim has been falsified. Of course that can always be rectified with Godmagic, which is non-falsifiable. Hence not worthy of consideration.
<quoted text>
Your "interpretations" are no longer relevant.
<quoted text>
The pattern of ancestry.
<quoted text>
The same mechanisms of evolution you've been told about for months.
<quoted text>
1 - Genetic ancestry is testable.
2 - Your "fall" contradicts "perfect function"
3 - It also relies on 2 magic people with extra-long longevity and extra long genomes for which you have zero evidence for.
4 - It also relies on an invisible magic Jew wizard poofing them into existence via mechanisms unknown for which you have no evidence for.
5 - It also relies on an arbitrary genetic (magic) barrier which prevents speciation.
7 - The reliance on magic ultimately being untestable and therefore unscientific.
8 - Since you already claimed on the other thread that the genome already had all the DNA it needed pre-built in this makes it possible for amoebas to evolve into humans, and indeed most other organisms on Earth due to its expansive genome. A flaw in your argument you keep overlooking.
9 - Time and time again we've refuted your claims and you prefer to rant rather than deal with rebuttals.
<quoted text>
We've already done that. Months later you're still trotting out the same old apologetics as if none of it has been dealt with before. The scientific community had already dealt with it YEARS before you even considered popping up on the forum.
<quoted text>
Why do you keep asking for what has already been provided?
De Nile.
Just stop at your first fling reflecting the delusionary state of your mental ability....

You may not have noticed this Dude, but I actually presented published data that the genome is deteriorating by the accumulation of deleterious mutations. Do you deny that? I'll repost it.

So what is this BS????????

"Your BLATANT racism aside, you have provided zero support and the claim has been falsified. Of course that can always be rectified with Godmagic, which is non-falsifiable. Hence not worthy of consideration."

Where is your head Dude? On what planet is that sort of BS seen as a reply backed by intelligence. You are nothing more than a religiously bigoted waste of space. What falsification? What BS are you peddling now? Answer: A big....NOTHING

No theoretical assertion can do worse than being based on faith, Isn't that the line you are more or less peddling.

You need as much faith as I do to peddle your theory.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105699 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! You come up with that all by yourself?!? Perhaps one day you'll take your own advice.
I already have Dude.

I am not a relgious bigot, like you!...And the dirt of the civilized world.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105700 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Oh here we go.
And how does this waffle and speculation meet the criteria of having a result that can be repeatedly demonstrated in the lab? It doesn't.
Never claimed it did.
MazHere wrote:
All you are doing Dude is what you always do, evade and come up with non related speak and steer the conversation into the never never land of evolutionary waffle.
No, actually I addressed him rather directly. He doesn't like that, and tends to put people on his "big meanies" list, all the while gloating about how loud his chest drums are. He's not quite as much on testosterone overload as our old Bucky, but...
MazHere wrote:
You were not asked to give your theoretical assertions on the matter. We all can make assertions. Bla Bla about chemistry is just the same rant as the rest of it.
The facts are very simple if one gets those evogoggles off for a minute. LOOK!!!!
At what? He made a mistake. Deal with it.
MazHere wrote:
THERE IS NO NO NO (in case you missed it) EVIDENCE THAT LIFE CAN ARISE WITHOUT THE HAND OF GOD
What God? Do you have any objectively verifiable testable scientific evidence that such an entity even exists?

If not the entire concept is irrelevant to the discussion.

Thousands of years nobody else has. Markie's not done it in three. You ain't done it in 3 months.

So why the frak you keep banging on about your invisible magic Jew thingy?
MazHere wrote:
or by natural processes.
False:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green_Grass...

All natural.

In case you missed it the first few hundred times.
MazHere wrote:
Now, that is the fact and struggle as you may the fact remains the fact. That FACT is that TOE in its entirety is based on a myth that evolutionists are unable to demonstrate and have faith in, but nothing more.
Not at all. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.
MazHere wrote:
There is no need to run all over the place like the lost appealing to reels of rhetoric.
Projectionometer working over time again Maz?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105701 Dec 31, 2012
Continued:
MazHere wrote:
When you lot finally morph all this waffle into a repeatable experiment then you will have your evidence.
DNA test. Job done.
MazHere wrote:
For the moment, regardless of all your words around chemisty, you still do not have evidence that life can arise into a complex factory of reproduction via natural processes. It really is very simple.
False:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green_Grass...

All natural.

In case you missed it the first few hundred times.
MazHere wrote:
All the convolutions you can present will not deter from this fact of the matter, TOE at the moment is based on a wishlist not evidence.
Not at all. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.
MazHere wrote:
That is the point and it is an unavoidable one for you evos.
I've not even attempted to avoid it, but in fact addressed it directly. Numerous times. So many in fact that the same stuff is on all my work documents and confusing the heck outta my colleagues.

Perhaps if one, just one creationist could break the chain and actually address the points for once, it would help clear up that confusion?
MazHere wrote:
If a creationist presented the same level of nothing that you try to offer as evidence, we get laughed at.
Um, bub? You DO. You get laughed at by the scientific community. You get laughed at by the Government. You get laughed at by the courts. You get laughed at by the Right Wing politicians who say everything you wanna hear, who then promptly dump you before actually going ahead with the final push of keeping their promises of banning gay marriages, abortion issues and theocracy in schools. But fundies are too dumb to even notice that.

And you CERTAINLY get laughed at by the mean old evo's here. Another thing which causes confusion at work. Why the heck am I laughing so much? Well some dumb hick keeps trying to sell us these stories of Jesus riding into town on the back of a velociraptor. Or take your pick of any one of Markie's instant classics. They're famous around these parts. Ask anyone.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105702 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh, a fundie is a fundie is a fundie.(shrug)
One day it's "goo," then it's "nothing," now it's "dirt." They don't even know what salinated water is, do they?
MiDutch

Waterford, MI

#105703 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh here we go.
And how does this waffle and speculation meet the criteria of having a result that can be repeatedly demonstrated in the lab? It doesn't.
All you are doing Dude is what you always do, evade and come up with non related speak and steer the conversation into the never never land of evolutionary waffle. You were not asked to give your theoretical assertions on the matter. We all can make assertions. Bla Bla about chemistry is just the same rant as the rest of it.
The facts are very simple if one gets those evogoggles off for a minute. LOOK!!!!
THERE IS NO NO NO (in case you missed it) EVIDENCE THAT LIFE CAN ARISE WITHOUT THE HAND OF GOD or by natural processes.
Now, that is the fact and struggle as you may the fact remains the fact. That FACT is that TOE in its entirety is based on a myth that evolutionists are unable to demonstrate and have faith in, but nothing more. There is no need to run all over the place like the lost appealing to reels of rhetoric.
When you lot finally morph all this waffle into a repeatable experiment then you will have your evidence. For the moment, regardless of all your words around chemisty, you still do not have evidence that life can arise into a complex factory of reproduction via natural processes. It really is very simple. All the convolutions you can present will not deter from this fact of the matter, TOE at the moment is based on a wishlist not evidence..
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundamentalist christian and muslim creationists" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>That is the point and it is an unavoidable one for you evos.
If a creationist presented the same level of nothing that you try to offer as evidence, we get laughed at.
You guys get laughed at because your "science" has been an ABYSMAL FAILURE for over 2000 years.

You get laughed at because your bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES are hilariously childish.

You get laughed at because you guys still believe in the scientific equivalent of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny ... and you actually think you have evidence for it all.

And just in case anyone needs reminding of what passes for "science" in MazHere's world:

The cosmos was magically conjured into existence with a magic "word" 6000 years ago.

The first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was conjured up from a rib taken out of the man.

Magic fruit that makes the eater really intelligent or immortal.

A talking snake.

Incest, incest and more incest was a very good thing at one point in human history.

An little bunny brings eggs to good boys and girls on Easter morning.

Angels and demons.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and wizards.

A jolly elf brings toys to good boys and girls on Christmas morning.

Angels having sex with mortal women.

People living up to 900+ years.

People and dinosaurs living together.

A fairy brings money to good boys and girls when they loose a tooth.

A big global flood that destroys everything except the passengers of a wooden boat.

The sun standing still in the sky to provide more light for more productive mass genocide.

A talking burning bush.

A talking donkey.

A man living inside of the stomach of a fish for three days.

Pi = 3.

Insects have 4 legs.

Letting livestock copulated in front of a stick painted with stripes produces offspring with striped coats.

Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes cures his leprosy.

Etc., etc., etc..
MiDutch

Waterford, MI

#105704 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a relgious bigot
Maybe not, but definitely a "fundamentalist christian or muslim creationist" idiot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105705 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Just stop at your first fling reflecting the delusionary state of your mental ability....
You may not have noticed this Dude, but I actually presented published data that the genome is deteriorating by the accumulation of deleterious mutations. Do you deny that? I'll repost it.
What for? Chimney already addressed it, just as he has with numerous other fundies quoting Sanford for YEARS. And there were numerous other flaws that some of us others have pointed out and you couldn't even address 'em three months ago either.

If you don't change, nothing else will change. Including the outcome.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
So what is this BS????????
"Your BLATANT racism aside, you have provided zero support and the claim has been falsified. Of course that can always be rectified with Godmagic, which is non-falsifiable. Hence not worthy of consideration."
Where is your head Dude? On what planet is that sort of BS seen as a reply backed by intelligence. You are nothing more than a religiously bigoted waste of space.
**I** am religiously bigoted after what YOU just put? Srsly?

Bub, you just claimed a subjective value statement of an "original pair" of human beings who were "perfect" with "perfect" DNA. And because of "TEH FALL" (which still contradicts your alleged claim of predicting "100% genomic function" which you have not successfully demonstrated yet either) then all henceforth were "lesser" human beings than those baselessly postulated originals. So all blacks, whites, chinese, native American, whatever you name it - are all "inferior" to the very first "perfect" human beings - which by the way are most often depicted as white. Although that might surprise the ancient superstitious Middle-Eastern goat-herders who invented the stories in the first place, but I digress. However what race they were to start with makes no difference, as you're left with one at the top. That is PROFOUNDLY racist. Again, this was pointed out to you many moons ago, but promptly ignored as usual.
MazHere wrote:
What falsification? What BS are you peddling now? Answer: A big....NOTHING
The falsification that demonstrated your assertions to be anti-reality.

Bub, I've seen you back only a day and you've not done anything except go round the houses we've already done before.
MazHere wrote:
No theoretical assertion can do worse than being based on faith, Isn't that the line you are more or less peddling.
You need as much faith as I do to peddle your theory.
Actually we don't. That's because when we demonstrate our position you ignore it in favour of your favourite caricatures. We then debunk those, just as I have done during the past 30 minutes,(again), and you're left with baseless theocratic assertions which rely on magic to solve all your problems.

I keep telling you we do not accept your invisible Jewmagic as a solution to all those problems, of your own making I might add, that you keep ignoring.

Once you STOP being a typical dishonest fundie hypocrite then, and ONLY then, can conversation actually progress anywhere. Otherwise you are doomed to stay here for years and end up like Markie and become the laughing stock of the entire forum.

And since many of us were here LONG before you ever showed up, and will be long after you've gone, it really does not make one diddle of difference what you decide to pick.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105706 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have Dude.
Really?

Still waiting Maz.
MazHere wrote:
I am not a relgious bigot, like you!...And the dirt of the civilized world.
And I'm a religious bigot for opposing reality-denying religious fundamentalism?

I can live with that.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105707 Dec 31, 2012
antichrist wrote:
Ima burst some bubbles.....live life, have fun, and quit trying to figure shit out. JUST LIVE PEOPLE!!!!
How would you relate that to the Sandy Hook shooting?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105708 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh, a fundie is a fundie is a fundie.(shrug)
Says one who supports a theory based on an unsubstantiated story based on faith alone. Life is able to arise from natural processes is the faith you base TOE in its' entirety on.

This is the lynchpin to the difference between opening the door to evolutionary theory be it theistic or not; OR keeping the door open to creationist options of instant, or ID, creation.

Waht you have is data that supports the theory of surprizes.

How is faith in abiogenesis being a possibility anything more than a matter of a difference scale in faith when it comes to basing an assumption on faith alone. Oh that's right, that would be one of those questions you need to ignore.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105709 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Says one who supports a theory based on an unsubstantiated story based on faith alone.
Yet we have demonstrated otherwise.

Numerous times over.

You have yet to address it.
MazHere wrote:
Life is able to arise from natural processes is the faith you base TOE in its' entirety on.
If you refer to abiogenesis then you are incorrect, for reasons already described.

Numerous times over.

You have yet to address it.

Any other reference is irrelevant, as once life is here, and it is, evolution works. Life DOES in fact arise naturally. In fact it ONLY EVER arises naturally.

Not one example of magical poofing.

Ever.
MazHere wrote:
This is the lynchpin to the difference between opening the door to evolutionary theory be it theistic or not; OR keeping the door open to creationist options of instant, or ID, creation.
Naturalism? I'm glad you think so. I have no problem with you admitting over and over that your "scientific alternative" is Jewmagic. However in science, naturalism is all that's observed.

Sorry if you find that inconvenient.
MazHere wrote:
Waht you have is data that supports the theory of surprizes.
It only surprises creationists as they keep expecting for reality to be not real and magic to be real.

That's NOT our problem.
MazHere wrote:
How is faith in abiogenesis being a possibility anything more than a matter of a difference scale in faith when it comes to basing an assumption on faith alone. Oh that's right, that would be one of those questions you need to ignore.
On the contrary, it's been addressed over and over and over and over...

Abio is not taken on faith which is why there are numerous scientific organisations across the globe researching the very subject. However it is not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. No faith required. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.

STOP worrying about abiogenesis. In fact I GIVE YOU abiogenesis on a plate. The first lifeforms were magically poofed into existence. GREAT. Good. NOW we have life. We can prove this since life IS in fact HERE. Now evolution can take over. OR you can prove that the Earth really IS just 6,000 years old and throw out chemistry, physics as well as biology as a whole, and prove that we all died of cancers long ago, that Noah and his crew all died when they were heated to 10,000 degrees kelvin and our solar system became a binary, then super invisible Jewmagic fixed it all again and life somehow was magically-poofed back to Earth as is no flood ever happened (imagine that) and that somehow the entire human population is still deteriorating despite the current exponential increase in population and all our DNA still has 100% function despite deterioration which will presumably at some point destroy humanity due to too much deterioration even though what is left of our deteriorated DNA will still be 100% functional, just not functioning any longer, okay? Good. Now snap to it.

Or we could save time and skip the BS and just point out that you don't believe in evolution cuz it wuz all done by an invisible magic Jew-wizard cuz teh Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#105710 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Says one who supports a theory based on an unsubstantiated story based on faith alone. Life is able to arise from natural processes is the faith you base TOE in its' entirety on.
This is the lynchpin to the difference between opening the door to evolutionary theory be it theistic or not; OR keeping the door open to creationist options of instant, or ID, creation.
Waht you have is data that supports the theory of surprizes.
How is faith in abiogenesis being a possibility anything more than a matter of a difference scale in faith when it comes to basing an assumption on faith alone. Oh that's right, that would be one of those questions you need to ignore.
Yeah, and despite all your bitchin', the theory/fact of Evolution just keeps on keepin' on.

People smarter and much more educated than you have tried for 150+ years to destroy it, but have all failed miserable.

Why do you suppose that is??

Do you suppose its because the 'theory' is true??

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105711 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
Continued:
<quoted text>
DNA test. Job done.
<quoted text>
False:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green_Grass...
All natural.
In case you missed it the first few hundred times.
<quoted text>
Not at all. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.
Good luck.
.
I am glad we agree life is here. I have addressed the questions related to the subject matter at hand. Forgive me if I don't want to take a merry stroll down every garden path you wish to walk down as an evasion.

This is false and you have not defended this claim at all...In fact it is a ridiculous reply to me that reflects the intelligence of a bird, eg parrot.

"Not at all. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here."

I suggest you are very wrong and further suggest you hope to peddle this line as an evasion. Your words..."Life evolves ...facts" is a reflection of the so called 'substance' you are trying to take some hero status over. This is not a refute just in case you are confused.

Three words such as your handwaving is what I more refer to as waffle, and an inability to appropriately respond but has some crazy need to regardless eg. to save face.

Life is here. The onus is on both of us to demonstrate, HOW it arises by natural processes if it did, or how an organism can be instantly formed, by physics.

My lack of understanding is no different than your own. It does not matter if you can present libraries of data and its interpretation because, likewise, so can creationists. Both can apparently challenge each other using their own assumptions of data.

The lynchpin for the both sides is to support the basis of their following assumptions, once we confirm how life arose.
I have no problem converting to theistic evolutionism. There are plenty out there.

The thing to me in all sencerity, is that, evolutionists really need to demonstrate this process is a possibility, not just talk about it and hand wave it away as you do.

That to me surpasses all guesswork around fossils, dating, and algorithmic magic coming from either side. Really, I don't care. I just would like to know in my lifetime but likely won't.
I have other sources of faith in God that do not relate to the creation/evolution debate.

If one believes in a deity at all, one also must acknowledge that such a deity will have knowledge of physics we have yet to understand.(BTW these aliens evos reckon are scattered everywhere are found in a non organic form in theist understanding that re very advanced, which is not surprising).

Indeed, one may take so many failed attempts to demonstrate this process of abiogenesis, in a controlled lab setting, where every possible scenario of nature can be mimicked, as evidence that it cannot be done by nature alone.

So my paradign is based on 2 assumptions. There is a God and he chose to create via instant creation as opposed to evolution. Atheistic evolution is based on one. Life can arise by natural proceses alone. The rest is able to be interpreted many ways.
If one is an atheist then one has no choice apart from panspermia, and that just relocates the same problem to another object or planet.

When it is demonstrated that life can arise by robust observation, then I am happy to convert to theistic evolution. I would never have thought it would have been so hard for you evos to pull it off, but it has!

YOU DON'T NEED TO RESPOND TO EVERY COMMENT, JUST TELL ME WHY YOUR LEAP OF FAITH IN ABIOGENESIS BEING POSSIBLE, IS ANY LESS A MATTER OF FAITH THAN MY FAITH IN A GOD.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#105712 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Are any of you going to explain how the deteriorating genome supports TOE better than a creationist pardigm? I guess not and that can go off into the too hard basket. Don't feel bad though, because your well credentialled researchers also have no clue.
I am confrontational because I can't believe I am talking to adults.
Every time I get on here the same crap ensues. An allegation is made that creationists can't support their view, a creationists provides their support, then evos go into melt down asking for a theory of everything. We surely get sick to death of it.
This is on top of the fact that TOE is entirely based on the myth that life can arise without the hand of deity and one that you have not repeatedly demonstrated in a lab. You actually do not have a theory of evolution because your failed attempts are kinda making it look impossible. Do you understand this at all?
Most of you are not here to engage in scientific discourse. Many are here as an excuse for their sorry lives and an open opportunity to ridicule a creationist. This fact is further exemplified by evos not addressing any questions creos ask even though I have attempted to address theirs.
One point at a time you will not refute me with any substance.
Now again after weeks we are back to the same thing with evos sprooking hot air ad nauseum at JWs.
The genome is deteriorating and I have presented data in support of that claim. That data supports the concept that the genome was once 'perfect' and now isn't. That is also an interpretation of the data based on an assumption of no common ancestry and a biblical scenario that can be supported or falsified. The data indicates deleterious mutations are accumulating in the genome, the interpretations come later. Is that simple enough?
How does this data align with TOE? What mechanism has been proven or demonstrated to address this? Why or how are any assumptions evos have made any more 'scientific' than my claims that a deteriorating genome can be interpreted as evidence for the fall of man?
If you want to be specific and defend TOE I suggest one of you rise to the occasion with links to your support.
If you can't then that says it all...evos want to post and publish and demand more substantiation than they themselves can present, but really can't defend themselves at all.
The evolutionist penchant....I publish, therefore I exist, even though it appears that I do not know what I am talking about. Show me I am wrong!
There was no fall of man...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105713 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we have demonstrated otherwise.
Numerous times over.
You have yet to address it.
<quoted text>
If you refer to abiogenesis then you are incorrect, for reasons already described.
Numerous times over.
You have yet to address it.
Any other reference is irrelevant, as once life is here, and it is, evolution works. Life DOES in fact arise naturally. In fact it ONLY EVER arises naturally.
Not one example of magical poofing.
Ever.
<quoted text>
Naturalism? I'm glad you think so. I have no problem with you admitting over and over that your "scientific alternative" is Jewmagic. However in science, naturalism is all that's observed.
Sorry if you find that inconvenient.
<quoted text>
It only surprises creationists as they keep expecting for reality to be not real and magic to be real.
That's NOT our problem.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it's been addressed over and over and over and over...
Abio is not taken on faith which is why there are numerous scientific organisations across the globe researching the very subject. However it is not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. No faith required. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.
Good luck.
STOP worrying about abiogenesis. In fact I GIVE YOU abiogenesis on a plate. The first lifeforms were magically poofed into existence. GREAT. Good. NOW we have life. We can prove this since life IS in fact HERE. Now evolution can take over. OR you can prove that the Earth really IS just 6,000 years old and throw out chemistry, physics as well as biology as a whole, and prove that we all died of cancers long ago, that Noah and his crew all died when they were heated to 10,000 degrees kelvin and our solar system became a binary, then super invisible Jewmagic fixed it all again and life somehow was magically-poofed back to Earth as is no flood ever happened (imagine that) and that somehow the entire human population is still deteriorating despite the current exponential increase in population and all our DNA still has 100% function despite deterioration which will presumably at some point destroy humanity due to too much deterioration even though what is left of our deteriorated DNA will still be 100% functional, just not functioning any longer, okay? Good. Now snap to it.
Or we could save time and skip the BS and just point out that you don't believe in evolution cuz it wuz all done by an invisible magic Jew-wizard cuz teh Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.
Ok so you agree than abiogenesis is not estabished and therefore I do not have to explain my genesis.

Now of all the BS you spoke about pick one....

Before we get to your great hero flapping about Noah and genome deterioration, let me begin by asking you do you also now concede, after blowing much hot air, that the deterioration of the genome (accumulation of deleterious mutations) can run along side a fully functioning genome and the two being in situ at the same time do not contradict each other?

Let's do an ignorance test, before we go any further.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105714 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
KAB wrote:
Only those adhering to and conducting themselves in harmony with that espoused by and embodied in the complete context of the Bible are the true religion (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
If I saw religious believers behaving any better than religious skeptics, I might take notice.
What is clouding your vision is failure to screen professed believers thru the Bible's filter. After doing that then check the behavior of those who meet the Bible's standard (Matthew 7:21,22).

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105715 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
Listen, why do you think it is called the cambrian Explosion? It is because these fossils showed up suddenly without evidence of any ancestors!
I can't speak for Chimney1, but I can tell you why I think it is called the Cambrian explosion.
It is because for a long time, they had not found any fossils any deeper than that.
There are some Creationist Websites in which the authors either still don't know about the pre-Cambrian findings or hope that their readers don't.
Those webmasters kick up a big fuss over the Cambrian explosion, hoping that in the excitement, their readers assume that elephants and dinosaurs and alligators are all found in the Cambrian layer.

In Darwin's time, they hadn't even found fossils in the Cambrian layer. Although he didn't call it that, Darwin wrote about a Silurian explosion.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105716 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
This is on top of the fact that TOE is entirely based on the myth that life can arise without the hand of deity ...
Is there any place in this forum where an Evolutionist brought up the subject of a deity?
I have seen postings citing Evolutionists with religious views.
I have seen postings reminding the Creationists that Evolutionary theory does not presuppose the nonexistence of a god.

But evolution has left us with the need for hate targets.
And religion is powerless to overcome that need for hate targets.
So religious followers apply euphemistic names to their feelings of hatred--something like "righteous indignation."1
And some Creationists have chosen both atheists and Evolutionists for their hate targets.
And it is efficient to consolidate hate targets.
So the Creationists keep right on ignoring those posts.
That enables them to keep right on pretending that atheists and Evolutionists are the exact same people.

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 min Charles Idemi 569
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min xxxooxxx 133,017
Science News (Sep '13) 1 hr positronium 2,938
How would creationists explain... 2 hr TurkanaBoy 364
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web