Evolution vs. Creation

[ChristineM]

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me help...and evolutionists have..."faith" that vampires, werewolves and zombies exist and now dragons...

Is this from the babble?

Lets see where you obsession stems from

Vampires - Leviticus 17:10-14, Proverbs 30:14, Leviticus 17:10-14 etc, etc. It is documented that vampires are of biblical origin – hey if it’s good enough for the god book it should be good enough for you – right?

Hmm, interesting,

How about werewolves, yes one mention in Genesis 49:27 will this enlighten us?

So how about zombies - Zechariah 14:12, Matthew 27:51-53 etc, etc

Bloodyhell, not wonder you are obsessed and it is no wonder that christians are so enamoured with the Twilight program, it must be like having the babble read out in church.

So what about dragons – yes there are in the babble too, Revelation 12:9, Revelation 13:1-18, Isaiah 27:1, etc, etc

[Chimney1]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you explain that. Doesn't the DNA repair system corrects any mismatch in genome or reduces mutations that occur. Mutations can occur (inherited or acquired) if there is an error in DNA and is either neutral or harmful. Unless you can prove that there are beneficial mutations. If most mutations known are harmful and causes defects, imagine the odds of having a 'beneficial' mutation if DNA mismatch repair system detects those mutations all the time. If humans evolved from lower life forms, that's a whole lot of mutations and an overworked DNA!

The DNA repair system is obviously not perfect because we know mutations occur.

Beneficial ones will spread rapidly through a population and become the "new normal", while deleterious ones will cause, by definition, some loss in survival potential and so be weeded out.

It may look hard to fathom when you say "evolved from lower life forms". You mean like worms? Well, perhaps. But we differ only in minor ways anatomically from a chimp. The main difference being expansion of their already impressive brain case...which we can see happening in stages through the hominid fossil record, most of it occurring in the last 2 million years well after bipedalism was established.

Its not hard to see the gradation back to monkeys from the great apes. Nor hard to see from some of the monkeys to lemurs, from lemurs to more ground based critters like weasels, from weasels to more primitive mammals in the fossil record. And we have good fossils linking the early mammals to reptiles, early reptiles to amphibians, and amphibians to fish. Its all gradual and slowww, even the so called "fast parts".

I just passed through 400 million years of evolution in that paragraph.

Important note though...the MODERN apes, monkeys, lemurs, reptiles, amphibians and fish are NOT exactly the same as the ancestral ones...they have all been evolving too, for just as long as we have. We did not evolve from a chimp, but from a common ancestor of modern humans and chimps...etc.

[Chimney1]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
ONCE AGAIN FOR THE HARD OF THINKING.
...My dearest Maz who gets her sexual excitement from a topix thread... you seem to be a fooking wiz at calling fact and truth as lies so go ahead and call me a liar and prove just how ignorant your guesswork makes you look
When you threaten to restrict my children’s education to your personal belief then you show yourself to be the type of person of limited intellect that you are, so limited in fact that you see no reason why all other people should not be as stupid as you

Getting a little impatient?

Careful, the moment you insult a biblical YEC creationist type (s)he will jump on the persecution soapbox, which is one of the emotional wellsprings of their irrational creed. Its like giving vodka to an alcoholic :) Don't you know there is a war on Christmas!

[Double Fine]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Apart from Kitten on here I like kittens and hate girley games like cricket.
I do like evolutionists that evade science, like most here. That gives me joolies for the day.
A couple gave it a shot for a couple of posts, failed miserably, and now you want to talk about kittens.
For starters. Why don't you evos tell us how arch is not an intermediate anything. Arch is a variety of dinosaur and has theropod traits, like a thick and boomerang shaped wish bone that looks nothing like a bird wishbone, what so ever.
I think evolutionaruy researchers need to get new evogoggles.

Want to talk science, Maz? Okay, let's talk science. Answer these questions, if you please:

1) You believe in gravity, right? Tell us, in a single sentence, why the Earth does not pull the Earth towards it? How is the moon able to stay in the sky?

2) When digging for dinosaurs, why do I have to go down into deeper strata to find them? Why will I not find a dinosaur in the same strata than say, a lion, elephant or oryx?

3) When we radiometrically test the strata, why do we get more severe decay the deeper we do down?

4) GPS has allowed us to confirm that the continents are moving - at about 1-2 inches per year. Africa and South America's coast lines has a matching geologic profile - that implies that they were together at one stage in time. At the current rate of motion, the continents would have split up 97 million years ago. Do you have any other explanation that fit the facts?

5) Also by using the wonders of GPS technology, we measure that Everest is getting higher every year. Please, give a brief explanation of why

6) Take distilled water, put it into the microwave for about 5 minutes and add a spoonful of sugar. What would happen?

[Double Fine]

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, that last question is actually implied in my posts...
So Darwin never existed? Darwin's theories were only meant as fiction? There really is no missing link?
The universe didn't just pop into existence out of nothing because a piece of dust had nothing to do?

Hey the Bible tells us that your God sniffs panties!

Yuck

[Double Fine]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>

WHAT TRAITS DOES ARCH HAVE THAT ARE ACTUALLY INTERMEDIATE?

Archaeopteryx

Bird features:

1. Flight feathers
2. Hollow bones
3. Broad wings

Therapod features:

1. Raptorial claw
2. Teeth.
3. Elongated tail

Now, here are some questions for you:

1. Why do chickens, in embryonic stage, have deactivated genes for teeth?

2. Why does DNA mapping tell us that T-Rex DNA shows that modern birds are its closest living ancestor?

[Double Fine]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Your link says nothing. And you posted a link that I addressed and then you disappeared.
Evos have found modern whale bones in strata dated to 290mya. Fact.
Your evo researchers came up with inconclusive dates that were blamed on contamination and therefore hold no validity at all. Fact.
Evo reseachers canot explain how the whale bones got there. Fact.
There are no dinosaur fossils in Michagan. Researchers suggest dino fossils were taken away during an ice age. Fact.
Logic. If dino fossils were taken away by ice sheets during an ice age, then the remaining fossils must be older that the dino fossils.
So not only can I present whale bones found in strata dated to 212 myo, I can also present a plausible explanation of why they are there and dino fossils aren't, on the back of inconclusive contaminated dating of the bones themselves.
For your whale ancestry you have a bunch of fossils that were cohabitating around 49mya, a basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, morphology that contradicts DNA in whale/hippo/pig.
Again I maintain that the data supports a creationist paradigm. Evolutionists have contradictory hubris to present to explain the data and suggest why whales could not possibly have 'evolved' 212mya.
So you have not finalized anything at all. Do you think making a comment then scurrying off is a debate, do you?
My supports and interpretations of data could not posibly be worse than what you have to present. That is a fact that evos would rather hang themselves over than admit.

So 290 million year old whales have been found?

Please, direct me to the published, peer reviewed article, please.

Also, which paleontologist discovered it, affiliated with which university?

[Double Fine]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Your link says nothing. And you posted a link that I addressed and then you disappeared.
Evos have found modern whale bones in strata dated to 290mya. Fact.
Your evo researchers came up with inconclusive dates that were blamed on contamination and therefore hold no validity at all. Fact.
Evo reseachers canot explain how the whale bones got there. Fact.
There are no dinosaur fossils in Michagan. Researchers suggest dino fossils were taken away during an ice age. Fact.
Logic. If dino fossils were taken away by ice sheets during an ice age, then the remaining fossils must be older that the dino fossils.
So not only can I present whale bones found in strata dated to 212 myo, I can also present a plausible explanation of why they are there and dino fossils aren't, on the back of inconclusive contaminated dating of the bones themselves.
For your whale ancestry you have a bunch of fossils that were cohabitating around 49mya, a basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, morphology that contradicts DNA in whale/hippo/pig.
Again I maintain that the data supports a creationist paradigm. Evolutionists have contradictory hubris to present to explain the data and suggest why whales could not possibly have 'evolved' 212mya.
So you have not finalized anything at all. Do you think making a comment then scurrying off is a debate, do you?
My supports and interpretations of data could not posibly be worse than what you have to present. That is a fact that evos would rather hang themselves over than admit.

Hahahaha!

Maz, do you think that fossil are bones??

LOL Maz, please be so kind and define for us:

WHAT IS A FOSSIL?

[ChristineM]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
By your definition faith is fact.
4 - a truth known by actual experience or observation
Faith
1 - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 -Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
I have actual experience with faith.
This is the part where you say something about how I'm dumb and how much better it is to be like you.

There ya go, evidence that christianity (more particularly funnymentalist christians) often re-define words to suite their own ends, take “scientific theory” for example, funnymentalist christians often interpret the term as guess. Or how about “morality” where they claim it does not apply to people who don’t think as they do. Jeesus f*?#ing christ on a crutch they even think christianity invented the concept.

Definition of ‘Experience’- Noun - Practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

See that,“practical’, not believed, not imagined but “practical”

And the definition of ‘Practical’ Adjective - Of or concerned with the ‘actual’ doing or use of something

See that “actual” not believed, not imagined but “actual”

And the definition of ‘Actual”– Adjective - Existing in fact

Oh look, full circle.

And of course as a good christian you misinterpret or deliberately confuse dream, trust, belief, imagination with practical, indisputable experience.

Belief in something is not actually experiencing, e.g. I can have faith that I turn the oven on, I can dream it and imagine turning the oven on but until I actually reach out and turn the knob the oven remains stubbornly off.

No, you believe you experienced, you have faith that you experienced, you cannot actually provide practical evidence for that experience

Why would I say you are dumb, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, the dumbness comes in when you don’t know the difference between reality and belief

[Double Fine]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep saying that over and over but there aren't sufficient evidence to support TOE from the sources being posted here

Go to a museum.

There you can look at the evidence, firsthand

[Double Fine]

Bat Foy wrote:

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Ever had biology?

Ever study a cell?

Have you ever seen one to have any sexual organs?

[Double Fine]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
cell fawn. lol

So... You also believe that cells reproduce sexually?

Tell me, what age did you leave school? Structure of the plant/animal cell is eighth or ninth grade biology

[ChristineM]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Getting a little impatient?
Careful, the moment you insult a biblical YEC creationist type (s)he will jump on the persecution soapbox, which is one of the emotional wellsprings of their irrational creed. Its like giving vodka to an alcoholic :) Don't you know there is a war on Christmas!

Nope I just shouted in the hope of something registering in her stupid creatard mind, only hope mind you, no real expectation.

I know, good ain’t it

What is Christmas? Oh that celebration that was hijacked from the Romans and two or three northern European celebrations, with the excuse that if you join our club you won’t have to give up your winter festival.

Surely you mean there is a war on Saturnalia or on Yule or on Winter Solstice

[Double Fine]

Bat Foy wrote:

Oh and why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?(Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species)

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Finally, a good, sensible question from you!

I am so proud of you.

Yes. Why reproduce?

The answer is that all animals, us included, have a thing known as DRIVE. A drive for survival, a drive for sex, a drive for obtaining nourishment and a drive to reproduce.

Giving you an example - Have you ever been in a life threatening emergency, i.e. a fight for your life? Have you noticed that, even if you are not a fighter, you gain this terrible WILL for survival? That you can dig deep down into reserves you never knew you had, to get out of it?

Or, likewise, have you ever been really aroused when with a woman you know it is a bad idea to sleep with? How difficult is it getting out of there? It is difficult, because we have an innate DRIVE for sex.

With our offspring, we (usually) have a DRIVE to care for them. That is why most parents, mine included, would lay down their lives in a second, to save mine.

Now, females also have a drive to reproduce. Have you ever seen a few ladies in the baby section of the store, mulling over how cute those little bootsies look? That is parental drive.

[Double Fine]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree the urge to reproduce is a strong one. However humans can and do choose not to. Where as a cat and every other living thing in the world doesn't choose they just do what comes natural. What gives man that ability to say no to our base instinct if man is nothing special and no better than any other animal how is it we can choose against nature?

Another good question!

The answer, is because we are able to (largely) think of the consequences of following our natural instincts. We are able to determine our position in society and make an informed decision.

For instance - I have a drive to reproduce, too. I am 26, in the prime of my life. However, I understand that currently, my financial position is not strong enough to pay for childcare. I would want to wait at least a few years, to ensure that I can support my children.

The same way I have an innate drive for sex, but I understand that I can't just sleep with any female out there.

[Double Fine]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
So you believe their formulas and statistics without understanding how they do it?

I am following your logic here:

Do you know how the computer works? How do you turn electricity into an interactive display on your screen?

[ChristineM]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Another good question!
The answer, is because we are able to (largely) think of the consequences of following our natural instincts. We are able to determine our position in society and make an informed decision.
For instance - I have a drive to reproduce, too. I am 26, in the prime of my life. However, I understand that currently, my financial position is not strong enough to pay for childcare. I would want to wait at least a few years, to ensure that I can support my children.
The same way I have an innate drive for sex, but I understand that I can't just sleep with any female out there.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Another good question!
…
but I understand that I can't just sleep with any female out there.

Say what? That’s not like you

[Double Fine]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Say what? That’s not like you

I meant to add, not without them paying for the privilege

:)

[Double Fine]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Mammals evolved from another group of reptiles (therapsids), at about the same time as dinosaurs were first evolving (from archosaurs), but dinosaurs became dominant and stayed that way until 65 million years ago.
But you are missing the point. Everything has been evolving for as long as everything else - about 3.5 billion years, whether its a frog or an oak tree or a human. And "superior" is a meaningless word in the context you use it.
You might think you are superior to a rat or an E. coli because you have a big brain. You can certainly say your intelligence, as a characteristic, is superior to theirs. But survival is the whole package. Your brain carries a price...perhaps even the ability to form massive groups and develop weapons of mass destruction can be seen as indications that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end!
Every species alive today is "the winner" in superiority and luck...come back in 50 million years to see which species were the luckiest or most superior "today". Perhaps 50 million years from now, the majority of successful species on the planet might have evolved from today's bats! There is no way of knowing.

Yeah.

The reasons why dinosaurs bacame dominant, is another great debate in itself. During the Triassic extinction event, the dinosaurs had a small, but adaptle player in the field: Coelophysis. I believe that that is the very animal that heralded in the dinosaurs as the dominant life forms on earth.

[Double Fine]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Want to talk science, Maz? Okay, let's talk science. Answer these questions, if you please:
1) You believe in gravity, right? Tell us, in a single sentence, why the Earth does not pull the Earth towards it? How is the moon able to stay in the sky?

My apologies.

"...why the Earth does not pull the MOON towards it"