Evolution vs. Creation

[60s chic]

The Duggers; creationists who are obsessed with pro-creating, and have an obsession with the letter J. Every one of their children's names start with the letter J! Can some one explain that to me? LOL!

[anonymous]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> The English people and some other truthful people, knows that i am right. The tribes became English, do your research. They left mainland Europe in mass. English is a language first spoken in England.

There's nothing to research. The term "English" is a label arbitrarily applied to a group of people. You won't find old records where some Christian monastery one day decided to say "Hey! Those people are the English people", and forevermore God's truth blessed the land. You can look up etymologies but they only give you paths and time estimates.

It's ironic how you can fixate on labels but remain terrified at the abundance of scientific labels, all packaged up in Latin and sounding so smarty-smart. But we all know that your angle is "faith" because you hide behind it due to your pride. There's nothing smart about that!

[Double Fine]

AustinHook wrote:

Re: Easy explanation of quantum gravity....
<quoted text>
Ah shucks... there goes our one chance to get all the Christians and infidels to agree on something...
Now, how am I going to find an audience when I evolve it all into an analogy of my pet theory of 2nd order quantum religiosity wherein I show that Everett's many worlds theory explains why every one is a new universe of religious perspective...?

You could always try a bribe...

[ChristineM]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, I have no clever comebacks on that one

Oh no – are you ill?

[Chimney1]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

I like this little critter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lystrosaurus

hero of the Permian extinction.

Perhaps there is a lot of luck involved at these pivotal points...and a tiny advantage can become leveraged massively as it compounds over time. Think Microsoft.

[anonymous]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
How is it calculated when there are millions of DNA to count?

Does it matter? That's an estimate. Do you trust the math in your car's speedometer when it tells you how fast you are going?

You can be reasonably sure that the circumference of the wheel is multiplied by the RPM measurement monitored somewhere in the automobile machinery, hopefully after the gearboxc. With genetics, you can assume that the rate of mutation has been observed for a DNA molecule of a known size, and the ratio of mutation for humans has been calculated based on the ratio between the measured sample and the measured size of human DNA.

In reality, we know that there are minutia, such as traction and tire wear that cause minor differences, as we'll find differences in mutation rate based on the chemical environment or exposure to radiation.

Just deal with it.

[Chimney1]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

You have to dig one layer deeper to answer it though. Why re there drives?

Those that had drives, made those that had drives, who made those that had drives...and those that didn't, didn't!

[Chimney1]

ChristineM wrote:

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

I see you are an optimist.

[Double Fine]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I like this little critter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lystrosaurus
hero of the Permian extinction.
Perhaps there is a lot of luck involved at these pivotal points...and a tiny advantage can become leveraged massively as it compounds over time. Think Microsoft.

Yes, they have been found right here in SA, fascinating stuff. Tough customers, were those. I have been up close with one of those beauties (I am being overly dramatic...I mean the fossil).

What the fossil record tell us, is that when disaster strikes (read: mass extinction), then it is the generalists, the all-rounders, that makes the cut.

Coelophysis was this. He wasn't as imposing as T-Rex, Spinosaurus or Giganotosaurus, but he could survive on scraps. Coelophysis could survive on insects or small fish, if push came to shove, which it did. T-Rex and his band of snarling Cretaceous terrorists could not. When their food source vanished, they were too specialised to do anything about it.

[anonymous]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't help it. It sounds funny.
Well if you could explain why mutations that matter are in reproductive systm, then we can continue to discuss.

Mutations that occur IN the reproductive system, not in the genes that control the reproductive system. It's all about the production of gametes.

...or are you just looking for another angle to suggest castration anxiety?

Sorry if my question left you feeling powerless.

[Chimney1]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Me knows I can and have supported my opinion.
Me also knows you have posted zilch to support yours.
Why do you keep going on and on about what everybody knows?
I have posted a link to pictures that demonstrate that indeed theropods and archaeopteryx had so called wish bones that actually look nothing like a birds wishbone. Is this just something you would like to ignore?
I have invalidiated many of the so called 'bird' traits as being bird traits, meaning; IF Theropods had these features, then arch simply had theropod features, including a wish bone like a theropod and NOT a bird, teeth like a theropod and NOT like a bird, three digits with no reversed hallux like a theropod and NOT like a bird, arch had a fixed femur like a theropod and NOT like a bird.
Hence Arch is not intermediate at all. It is simply a theropod dinosaur and has all the features that connect it to theropods and none of the traits that define a modern bird, at all.
So you evos like to quack alot. What intermediate features are you now claiming demonstrate intermediacy? What are these strong links you are talking about? or,Are you one of the 'they said so' crowd?
I prefer an appropriate reply and not the usual hubris and unsupported opinion.

I loved this post so much I copied a chunk of it onto another forum. On that one, one of your fellow creationists argued repeatedly that archaeopteryx is definitely just a bird. He is proud of his scholarly work in keeping up with this thing he calls "creation science" too. No slacker, he can list all the reasons why Archie is a bird, eternally separate and distinct from Therapod Dino-kind.

You might be too dense to see it, but this proves evolution's point better than almost anything. Keep at it!

[Double Fine]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to dig one layer deeper to answer it though. Why re there drives?
Those that had drives, made those that had drives, who made those that had drives...and those that didn't, didn't!

I don't think that is a too accurate assessment, amigo. No animal wants to die, but some have no choice.

Dodo birds, for instance, lived in harmony with nature for very long, until European man came along. They were successful, but could not adapt to the new environment.

Methinks avoiding extinction is drive + ability to adapt = survival

[Chimney1]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they have been found right here in SA, fascinating stuff. Tough customers, were those. I have been up close with one of those beauties (I am being overly dramatic...I mean the fossil).
What the fossil record tell us, is that when disaster strikes (read: mass extinction), then it is the generalists, the all-rounders, that makes the cut.
Coelophysis was this. He wasn't as imposing as T-Rex, Spinosaurus or Giganotosaurus, but he could survive on scraps. Coelophysis could survive on insects or small fish, if push came to shove, which it did. T-Rex and his band of snarling Cretaceous terrorists could not. When their food source vanished, they were too specialised to do anything about it.

Yep, the jack of all trades does better in an unpredictable crisis...and life on earth is just one damned thing after another!(or was that "history"?)

Evolution of evolveability...takin' it to another level.

[Bat Foy]

tony1003 wrote:

<quoted text>Like you, I volunteer using my skills with the disabled (teaching them to sail). Some are amputees returning from Afghanistan - I'm ex-military. One of the most rewarding areas of my life.

Have you ever thought of the ramifications if their religion, not yours is the "right" one?

No I do not consider any religion but mine to be correct.

[ToManyLaws]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
No I do not consider any religion but mine to be correct.

And I consider all religions as man made cults based in hate and bigotry...

[anonymous]

Bat Foy wrote:

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

Well, now you're looking at the problem wrong. You want a straight answer, read up on it, or at least think clearly. Single cells don't reproduce sexually. It's that simple. Multicellular species were around for a long time before sexuality would be exploited. Before sexuality could be defined, a mechanism for exchanging genes to create greater diversity had to occur.

When you think about it, sexuality IS one of the best arguments for Evolution. It compels the species to shuffle genes around from generation to generation, thus allowing positive mutations to propagate without being completely anchored to the genetic entirety of the individual that first expressed the good mutation.

The exchange of genes must be a powerful tool for change. It would be so much simpler if we could all just sit in a corner and split into two when the whimsy took us, wouldn't it?

[ChristineM]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you are an optimist.

It’s the only way to live in hope

[Chimney1]

MazHere wrote:

See the difference between hubris and supporting an assertion.
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

From your article:

"[Update 07/09 23:00 Indeed, to many scientists, these are the questions that matter, and ones that ENCODE has dodged through a liberal definition of “functional”. That, say the critics, critically weakens its claims of having found a genome rife with activity. Most of the ENCODE’s “functional elements” are little more than sequences being transcribed to RNA, with little heed to their physiological or evolutionary importance. These include repetitive remains of genetic parasites that have copied themselves ad infinitum, the corpses of dead and once-useful genes, and more."

Didn't you read down that far?

[ChristineM]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
No I do not consider any religion but mine to be correct.

The delusion of the religious

Do you narrow it down even further to the particular sect of the religion you follow?
You will think “exactly” as I think or I will judge you immoral and you will go to hell?

Only Catholics will go to heaven
Only BACs will go to heaven
Only seventh day adventists will go to heaven
Etc…

[Charles Idemi]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
There's nothing to research. The term "English" is a label arbitrarily applied to a group of people. You won't find old records where some Christian monastery one day decided to say "Hey! Those people are the English people", and forevermore God's truth blessed the land. You can look up etymologies but they only give you paths and time estimates.
It's ironic how you can fixate on labels but remain terrified at the abundance of scientific labels, all packaged up in Latin and sounding so smarty-smart. But we all know that your angle is "faith" because you hide behind it due to your pride. There's nothing smart about that!

Really ?