Evolution vs. Creation

[The Dude]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Always did say/think that the proverbial missing link lies somewhere in the "water ages" of this earth...and everything else just followed.
Derwin, like many others before--and STILL, just did NOT have the whole big picture.

No he didn't.

He correctly predicted part of that picture though. And that's why evolution is the only game in town in biological circles.

[Cybele]

It's a hoax!

http://entertainment.msn.com/videopreview/...

[Makesure100]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
If I wanted to preach I'd go elsewhere. The true God does not care about the evolution/creation debate, He already knows. I am still curious.
I am here to see how evos can justify their incredible egos with science. So far I have found no justification with most evos being happy to talk philosophy or make challenges and then hide.
I don't really care how God created I just dislike the evoegomaniacs and like to dual with them.

I don't preach, I deal with facts. To my best interpretation, creation works. No fossil evidence proves that the evos are out to lunch. They push evo because of their hatred to acknowledge a creator, or someone to answer to. Independence is a religion you know. I duel with all the evos too. They have no evidence. NONE.

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't say ALL science is wrong. You just want to pretend that I don't understand anything about it. How much do you know about DNA that you are absolutely sure that changes in DNA led to evolution?

Enough. Because if we found a giraffe with a genetic makeup that completely violated nested hierarchies then we certainly would have heard about it.

Well, unless that big mean old atheist Darwinist world-wide conspiracy covered it all up that is.

Of course if you DO happen to have a valid critique of the information I just posted then not just us but the ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY would certainly love to hear about it.

I've asked that of every other fundie I've come across for years too. But they never seem to wanna take up the offer.

So so far, no, you don't appear to know very much about it. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked that question in the first place. The anti-evolutionist's FIRST place of argument is one from ignorance. That's why creationists constantly argue against straw-men.

Cybele wrote:

How do you explain a giraffe's long neck? Did it have to reach up that high to eat when it bends down to eat grass? That's just one example. I can go on and on and you wouldn't know the answer.

Of course you could. That's because Gish-gallopping is far easier than addressing reality. Of course that would only be ignoring the evidence we DO have for evolution in favour of looking for any gaps of knowledge - of which there will always be in any scientific endeavor. For if we knew *everything* we would be God.

But as it turns out, your query here doesn't even ADDRESS the validity of evolution. Giraffe have long necks? So what?(shrug) Whereas evolution CAN explain why it still has only the same amount of neck vertibrae instead of lots more (which would be much more efficient) and why the laryngeal nerve goes down from the head to the chest and back up again, and also explains why the okapi's anatomically similar.

That enough for ya?

So YES. Actually ALL of science would be re-thought if evolution were wrong. Because if something doesn't work the way it should it would tend to affect something else. Which in turn would affect something else. And something else. And so on. If evolution is wrong then geology is wrong. If geology is wrong then astrophysics is wrong. If geology and astrophysics is wrong then you have no oil for plastics and no GPS for your cellphone which now has no nice no-plastic case made of shite. Oh, and your computer does not work too. Yet here you are typing on it.

So PLEASE, put some thought behind your posts before you go off repeating some dumbazz creationist "question" which "seriously puts biology as a whole into doubt!"

The fact of the matter is that if we are dealing with anti-evolutionists then we are dealing with someone who is willfully ignorant. And I'd suggest arguing against gravity instead.

[The Dude]

Makesure100 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't preach, I deal with facts. To my best interpretation, creation works. No fossil evidence proves that the evos are out to lunch. They push evo because of their hatred to acknowledge a creator, or someone to answer to. Independence is a religion you know. I duel with all the evos too. They have no evidence. NONE.

Of course they don't. It's all just a big world-wide atheistic Darwinist conspiracy involving multiple countries, governments, schools, universities, courts, every major scientific organisation and literally hundreds of thousands of scientists working in the field. Oh, and some 12,000 Christian clergy to boot. Must be them "fake" Christians the creo's often tell us about huh.

Evolution really IS wrong. Why? Because life really was poofed into existence just a few short thousands of years ago by an invisible magical Jew wizard.

Or go back to 885 and try again.

[The Dude]

Makesure100 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't preach, I deal with facts. To my best interpretation, creation works.

By the way, I'd certainly like to know how. Presumably your "scientific theory" of GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC is relevant to the scientific method, yes? Just how did Noah re-populate the Earth after all that in-teh-fam nook-nook?

With his atoms scattered across the solar system?

THAT'S ONE HECK OF A BOTTLENECK!

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO! where did you get that theory about giraffes? Darwin from the 1800? LOL.
How does our DNA change? You have an explanation? or sleepiness is your excuse?

Nope. Probably yours. DNA changes due to replication error. It reproduces itself during the process of procreation but doesn't do so accurately. It has redundancy to fix errors but there are always some that get through, which is why we're all born with roughly 125 to 175 mutations. This is what enables evolution.

Creationists have just one barrier that would work. The Earth is 6,000 years old.

But then that would just be throwing ALL science out the window again.

[Makesure100]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way, I'd certainly like to know how. Presumably your "scientific theory" of GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC is relevant to the scientific method, yes? Just how did Noah re-populate the Earth after all that in-teh-fam nook-nook?
With his atoms scattered across the solar system?
THAT'S ONE HECK OF A BOTTLENECK!

Freakshow.......I look at the population at that time and calculate to our time. You must.....MUST have been at the bottom end of a dumptruck to come to your conclusions. Yes, you are a freakshow.

[The Dude]

Makesure100 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am pleased to see that you incorporate evolution as a theory. It will always be a theory because we don't have the fossil evidence to prove otherwise. Creation is the only adaption as to why we are even here. However, it takes humility to accept a creator.

Actually it takes pure supreme arrogance.

Just ask Maz. Few weeks back he had this big rant about how "special" he was, all because planet Earth and the entire universe was made just for him so he could spend eternity with God in eternal paradise.

But whenever I ask about the scientific evidence for the existence of the invisible Jewish wizard and the scientific mechanisms it made use of he gets strangely silent. In that area anyway.

[The Dude]

Makesure100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Freakshow.......I look at the population at that time and calculate to our time. You must.....MUST have been at the bottom end of a dumptruck to come to your conclusions. Yes, you are a freakshow.

Believe it or not, current population size isn't the problem (although I do remember DS doing calculations on known ancient local populations near to the time and there were some problems there, but I digress).

Genetic viability however, no THAT'S something totally different.

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not a YEC. I don't worship Hovind like how you evos worship Darwin.

Darwin is no more worshipped than Einstein, Copernicus or Galileo.

However while even most creationists have accepted the Earth is not flat nor the center of the universe (and have some special apologetics for that to boot) there are still some which have not yet come to accept the reality of evolution. They therefore attack a scientist who has been dead for 150 years whom the main thrust of his work has since been scientifically vindicated.

We would defend Newton in the same manner if people attacked the theory of gravity so. But he would no more be "worshipped" than Darwin, he is simply recognized as someone who made important contributions to science.

Thankfully not all Christians are so ignorant.

[The Dude]

Makesure100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did you get your conscience? The ability to choose? You give credit to an unknown theory or purpose. Try to fathom a rolex watch emerging from stone dust to exactness of time. You are a fool. It's inexcusable to deny creation.

Are watches naturally-occurring self-replicating biological organisms?

No.

Can we explain the mechanisms behind the making of a watch?

Yes.

Do we also have scientific evidence of them?

Yes.

Can you explain the mechanisms behind the "creation" of a human being via the application of Jewmagic?

No.

Do we have scientific evidence of those mechanisms or said particular invisible Jewish wizard?

No.

.

I have no need to deny what you cannot demonstrate.

Could a magical Jewish wizard have created all that we see? Well sure.

But if it did, it used evolution.

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I've taken Bio, Chem, Physics, Physiology, etc....so your explanation is rather mediocre.
I'm asking how does DNA of one species change into another. Since evo scientists claim that we evolved from other species. Wouldn't genetics have an explanation to this? Similarities in DNA or chromosome count doesn't account for evidence for TOE. I'd rather believe in the science of spiderman. LOL.

Oh, I see. Then you really HAVEN'T taken bio, chem, physics, physiology etc. You went to school, science class sucked and so you took interest in other things OTHER than science, and now you're pretending to know something about science. And you're just another liar for Jesus, just like pretty much every creationist we encounter in these forums. Got it.

[Cybele]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Enough. Because if we found a giraffe with a genetic makeup that completely violated nested hierarchies then we certainly would have heard about it.
Well, unless that big mean old atheist Darwinist world-wide conspiracy covered it all up that is.
Of course if you DO happen to have a valid critique of the information I just posted then not just us but the ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY would certainly love to hear about it.
I've asked that of every other fundie I've come across for years too. But they never seem to wanna take up the offer.
So so far, no, you don't appear to know very much about it. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked that question in the first place. The anti-evolutionist's FIRST place of argument is one from ignorance. That's why creationists constantly argue against straw-men.
<quoted text>
Of course you could. That's because Gish-gallopping is far easier than addressing reality. Of course that would only be ignoring the evidence we DO have for evolution in favour of looking for any gaps of knowledge - of which there will always be in any scientific endeavor. For if we knew *everything* we would be God.
But as it turns out, your query here doesn't even ADDRESS the validity of evolution. Giraffe have long necks? So what?(shrug) Whereas evolution CAN explain why it still has only the same amount of neck vertibrae instead of lots more (which would be much more efficient) and why the laryngeal nerve goes down from the head to the chest and back up again, and also explains why the okapi's anatomically similar.
That enough for ya?
So YES. Actually ALL of science would be re-thought if evolution were wrong. Because if something doesn't work the way it should it would tend to affect something else. Which in turn would affect something else. And something else. And so on. If evolution is wrong then geology is wrong. If geology is wrong then astrophysics is wrong. If geology and astrophysics is wrong then you have no oil for plastics and no GPS for your cellphone which now has no nice no-plastic case made of shite. Oh, and your computer does not work too. Yet here you are typing on it.
So PLEASE, put some thought behind your posts before you go off repeating some dumbazz creationist "question" which "seriously puts biology as a whole into doubt!"
The fact of the matter is that if we are dealing with anti-evolutionists then we are dealing with someone who is willfully ignorant. And I'd suggest arguing against gravity instead.

A bunch of gibberish and fallacious statements.

Please explain why REAL SCIENCE would substantiate the validity of theory of evolution?

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I am what I am and not what you think I am. what fallacies am I pulling out here? You are the one pulling out ad homs on your every post!

Oh, you're not a creationist? But it just so happens that's where you've got your science "education" from - pure arguments from ignorance. Ask a silly question. Have it answered. Ignore it and ask another question. Have it answered. Ignore it and ask another. Keep it up and eventually you'll have to reach a point where *someone* has to say "I don't know." Then VICTORY! EVILUSHUN BUSTED AND FALISIFIED!! I WINZ!!! YAY!

Meanwhile evolution carries on, bioligical research carries on, and ignorant fundies who have no interest in science will continue to fling poo at all the sciences that give them their modern day conveniences.

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
A bunch of gibberish and fallacious statements.
Please explain why REAL SCIENCE would substantiate the validity of theory of evolution?

Um, bub, but in case you didn't notice? That has already been given to you.

Last Thursday.

What exactly would convince someone who isn't interested in science and is personally convinced of evolution's falsity anyway?

I can't convince the willfully ignorant. And I don't care if you personally don't understand what it is we're saying. Your lack of education is not our problem.

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
A bunch of gibberish and fallacious statements.
Please explain why REAL SCIENCE would substantiate the validity of theory of evolution?

P.s.

It already has.

Long before you were born.

And so since you haven't been able to address a single post about evolution without resorting to bringing up a question on a subject different to whichever one you were replying then I guess evolution is in no danger of being falsified any time soon.

"Right, so they explained how the giraffe demonstrated evolution. Okay then well what about the evolution of the rare lesser-spotted weasel of the far Australian outback! What about that one, huh? Huh? HUH?!?"

Keep going kid, you're batting a thousand.

[Cybele]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, bub, but in case you didn't notice? That has already been given to you.
Last Thursday.
What exactly would convince someone who isn't interested in science and is personally convinced of evolution's falsity anyway?
I can't convince the willfully ignorant. And I don't care if you personally don't understand what it is we're saying. Your lack of education is not our problem.

So why don't you answer my question? Does someone need to accept the string theory or parallel universe if one takes a physics class?

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't see the evidence, that's right. I was hoping for something like evidence in mutagenesis in nature or in a lab.

... and not only do you want dinos to birds, but you want it in your own lifetime. YUP! YOU CERTAINLY DID GREAT IN THAT BIOLOGY CLASS!

Cybele wrote:

I am really more interested in genetics than fossil records as some evidence turned out to be a hoax.

Really? Any of those hoaxes turn out to be ones that used evolution to falsify 'em perchance?

If I find you mentioned one of the creo usuals there'll have to be another kitten sacrifice!

[The Dude]

Makesure100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Science doesn't exsist Freakshow. Lets have a party.

Oh, you're a nihilist. Great.

It's okay Donny. We are in no danger at all.