Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95233 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
So when the bullets are flying, or engine number 1 (of 1) quits in the mountains I call out "Carl, Richard, I need some help here" or "Oh magical clock in the cockpit, maker of all things, how about some jet fuel today, and I will worship you the rest of my days". Absurd isn't it? In those time's we cut right to the quick. That's a place that only God can fill.
Teens have other escapes, all of them bad, sex, drugs or worse. Be honest, they are missing THE answer and its not Bil/yrs Godless materialism framed in evolution and pushed in the schools and media.
Since Christians accept evolution I know not of what you're referring with this "Godless materialist evolution". If you mean that evolution doesn't mention God then I point out that neither does the Godless materialist gravity. Note how gravity, also a scientific concept is just as materialistic.
SBT wrote:
The Framers of our country would be sick to see where this country is right now and where it's going. That's why they inserted "Creator" in the Constitution, we have abandoned it and are paying the terrible price.
I certainly don't recall the word "Creator" in the US Constitution. Also isn't it great that the same word also does not necessarily necessitate intelligence and therefore can be accepted by non-theists also? A bit like hydrogen and oxygen creating water, no intelligence required.
SBT wrote:
So if we agree that there is a Deity
If we agree. But we don't have to.
SBT wrote:
we must search for the true one. God has put the desire to know the truth about such things in every heart. So where do we go? Carl? Richard? a clock?
Why obviously we go to you, your favourite religious book, and refer to how you interpret it rather than anyone else.

Well, except for the fact that you don't know more about God than anyone else on the entire planet does, period. Assuming such an entity exists.
SBT wrote:
All the anti-Bible posters here have been reading too much hate mail and need to read more Scripture before they judge, get on-line where the answers are. Look at the signs of the times, its no time to dally.
Well I stopped taking scripture seriously when it spoke of talking lizards and donkeys, flat Earth, and the existence of plants before sunlight. Then the book's advertising crew had a poor habit of threatening anyone who disagreed with their baseless religious opinions with eternal torment but Jesus loves us amen. Understandably some people found that whole outlook rather primitive.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95234 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
I agree Evolution is certainly the science philosophy of this age, but your "mountains of evidence" is where it fails, and falls apart so badly in debate that your side published warnings not to debate in this country a dozen years ago. They used lots of excuses, the attendees don't understand, the other side uses trickery, and on and on. The entire animal kingdom is our evidence, advances in DNA study pushed your side into a total dependence on mutations, so we are all mutations? When I was a kid, a mutation was something ugly and bad, now everyone and everything is a mutation, Dawkin's mutation proof is found here
Yes, mutations are ugly to you because you never understood evolution. Just a pinch of the evidence is here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
SBT wrote:
For evo to work you need a real mechanism, not words and pictures, they have none.
You appear to be projecting. Your position is invisible Jewmagic. Ours at least has mechanisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechan...

So where you lying when you said there were no mechanisms or lying when you claimed to know enough about evolution to critique it? Or lying when you said your criticisms had any scientific relevance considering your magic position.
SBT wrote:
It only gets worse as more study is done at the cell level. Unapologetically, a belief in classic evolution is anything but science. Many scientists of high stature and great contribution have rejected evolution outright for years. Popularity doesn't make anything true.
Funny thing is it's popular mostly with scientists. So our high stature scientists outnumber yours.

And of course Christianity being (just about) the world's most popular religion doesn't make it true, right?
SBT wrote:
As for our Constitutional framers being Deists, we know a small minority were, and they respected the Bible and supported open use. But the majority were committed Christians, along he line of Washington or even more openly devout, the name of Christ openly invoked in prayer. The writing's of the framers identified "religion" as Christianity, and "Mohammedians" and "Jews" those of other faiths. One Catholic was allowed in. In truth, John Adams ' work on government was foundational, Jefferson acknowledged that. We know that Jeff and Franklin did poorly in the area of morals, hopefully they got it right in the end, but are poor examples of upstanding seculars.
The Founders were made up of 2 Catholics, 6 from different Protestant sects and the rest deists. They also ensured religious freedom for ALL, not Christianity above all others.
SBT wrote:
Our motto, "In God We Trust"
Was thrown in during the 60's Red Scare by fundies who didn't give a fig about the Constitution or religious freedom.
SBT wrote:
God made the decision, sad as it was, but from what we now know of the generational effects of pedophiles and their victims, it must have been justified, He is the perfect Judge.
Right. Your god sentenced all men to damnation all because two people ate a magic apple which was all your god's fault anyway for making them stupid AND throwing in an evil talking lizard in with them to boot. And to top it all off being all-powerful and all knowing already knew exactly what was gonna happen all along because as we all know the whole thing is all planned out anyway by ending in a massive apocalypse since he's already had his fill of wiping out lots and lots of babies - according to the Bible anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95235 Jul 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Seems to me you are lying or you are a complete idiot isolated from reality.
Correct. Twice.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95236 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
Since Crick, we now know Darwin was mistaken
Um, you are aware that DNA is what cemented evolution in the scientific community, right?
SBT wrote:
but once you push the ship of macro-evolution away from the dock (mistaking it for mirco-evolution
Ah, so evolution occurs it's just that a young Earth prevents change from accumulating. Well done. You have at least openly admitted you're a reality denier.
SBT wrote:
some wrongfully calling the complexity of life 'accidents'
Yes. By creationists. Chemistry is not accidental. If you combine hydrogen and oxygen you won't "accidentally" get platinum or gold.
SBT wrote:
via a mechanism's that has never been replicated in the lab
Actually if you accept "micro" evolution then you accept that the mechanisms have been replicated in the lab. At which point due to humans lasting only about 100 years as opposed to the 4.5 billion years of the Earth's existence, your ONLY argument then is "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" Which means admitting to an arbitrary barrier to accumulative change.
SBT wrote:
even after thousands of generations of fruit fly's failed to get mutation driven evolution to work in a positive way. It didn't work because there's no mechanism to get it to work, so just write words, draw pictures, tell stories and attack the other view.
Which is why we can give examples of positive mutations, which will subsequently be ignored, because:
SBT wrote:
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so man is without excuse."
Will and still holds true.
Except for the fact that invisible things are NOT clearly seen and your position rests upon Jewish magic. This means evidence is not relevant to your position no matter how much we provide since there is no problem that cannot be solved by throwing invisible Jewmagic at it. Of course even IF evolution was wrong we could also claim magic and it would be just as valid.
SBT wrote:
The definition of 'science' is - it must be testable, repeatable, verifiable and observable.
Do a DNA test on you and your parents. Are all your genomes consistent with genetic drift? Then evolution has successfully passed that test. Observable, testable, verifiable, repeatable.

Now compare this with invisible Jewish magic. Is the DNA consistent with genetic drift? Then Goddidit. Is it not consistent with genetic drift? Then Goddidit. Doesn't matter. Now you see your problem.

You will not acknowledge it however since you've already demonstrated yourself to be yet another liar for Jesus.
SBT wrote:
That's illogical from 1-4 above, and from experience. So evolution gains its illogical trump card of non-reason, how?- try to be the only game in town. Wrong, there is another competing and better answer.
Invisible Jewmagic? It's not competing in the scientific arena. Only the public opinion arena. But as we already agreed, popular opinion has no bearing on a concept's reality.
SBT wrote:
And yes, they issued warnings not to face to face public debate our side,(I saw copies of their mass mailings), it got too embarrassing for them, so they choose to stand off and mock instead.
That's because fundies are dishonest in public debates. However in scientific debates those are the ones fundies shy away from. They're happy to write books on apologetics but not publish a science paper on invisible Jewmagic. They're supposed to be without excuse, right?

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#95237 Jul 12, 2013
Hello Dude, everyone

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95238 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree Evolution is certainly the science philosophy of this age, but your "mountains of evidence" is where it fails
Its abundantly clear, SBT, that the only exposure to the evidence you have experienced is the baloney you learned in creationist site or literature.
, and falls apart so badly in debate that your side published warnings not to debate in this country a dozen years ago.
There is a level below which this kind of debate is futile.

Debating science with idiots and liars like Ben Stein and Hovind who will use the debate to showboat is a waste of time. Frankly, their tactics are daytime talkshow level and they would be laughed out of any academic debating circles where you actually have to respect data and provide coherent logic for your claims.
When I was a kid, a mutation was something ugly and bad, now everyone and everything is a mutation, Dawkin's mutation proof is found here;
Good lord, do you think DAWKINS originated the idea of a mutation???? It goes right back to Darwin, 150 year, spontaneous random variation. And as soon as the DNA code was cracked, mutations were understood to be random changes in the sequence.
Sorry you were not better informed as a child. I was.
For evo to work you need a real mechanism, not words and pictures, they have none.
Refuted.
It only gets worse as more study is done at the cell level.
Nope. At the cell level, it gets even better for evolution.
Many scientists of high stature and great contribution have rejected evolution outright for years.
99.85% of biologists accept it.
The writing's of the framers identified "religion" as Christianity, and "Mohammedians" and "Jews" those of other faiths.
Read the following:
The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary)...signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers ...on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
...
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Explain that.
One Catholic was allowed in. In truth, John Adams ' work on government was foundational, Jefferson acknowledged that. We know that Jeff and Franklin did poorly in the area of morals, hopefully they got it right in the end, but are poor examples of upstanding seculars.
Our motto, "In God We Trust" is based on the Bible, we have been blessed as the greatest Nation on Earth, devising the best inventions and innovations, feeding parts of the planet and training more, have the most prosperous people and our brave military saving the world from slavery more than once as a "Christian Nation", apart from the philosophies you cited. You are mistaken in your characterizations and our history.
The sick practices of the nations Israel displaced in Canaan are well documented, offering children in fire, widespread child abuse and more that’s unprintable here. God made the decision, sad as it was, but from what we now know of the generational effects of pedophiles and their victims, it must have been justified, He is the perfect Judge.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95239 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
As for our Constitutional framers being Deists, we know a small minority were, and they respected the Bible and supported open use. But the majority were committed Christians, along he line of Washington or even more openly devout, the name of Christ openly invoked in prayer. The writing's of the framers identified "religion" as Christianity, and "Mohammedians" and "Jews" those of other faiths.
The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Explain that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95240 Jul 12, 2013
Sorry, reposted the last because I thought the longer post had been lost.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95241 Jul 12, 2013
ArchAdam949 wrote:
<quoted text>
The biggest questions I have about evolution are the genetic mutations that started the first vascular systems, the heart, organs like that. In order for evolution to occur, there has to be a genetic mutation from a parent that is beneficial to the species, and then for the parent to pass that mutation down to offspring. My question is, how did the first vascular system begin? It would have been a long and drawn out process to create an entire vascular system for an organism. If it started off slowly, just one little piece of the vascular system at a time, did the organism know that in a few million years it would have an entire vascular system? And did the other essential organs develop this way too? Being essentially useless for millions of years before they were fully developed? This has never made sense to me. How can you go from a prokaryotic cell to an organism with a beating heart. Another thing I have wondered is when would it be beneficial for a marine animal to begin to develop the traits of a land animal? Evolution teaches that the traits that an organism acquires during evolution must be beneficial for the animal keep that trait. Land and sea animals are VASTLY different, so for a sea animal to poke its head out of the water everyday, then air breathing lungs begin to develop over millions of years, just seems preposterous to me.
Tell me, as these are big questions to you, have you actually tried to look up the answers on the many good scientific sources available to you?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95242 Jul 12, 2013
_Susan_ wrote:
Hello Dude, everyone
Hello
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#95243 Jul 12, 2013
A little heads up for the crude Jesus Freaks arguing against evolution here, like SBT, etc.:

The following is from the evangelical Christians at Baylor University, the "largest Baptist University in the world," where the students go on mission trips, etc.

This is from the Biology Department at Baylor:
http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php...

Statement on Evolution
"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

Also, here from the Baylor Geology Department:
http://www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php...

Quote:

"Question: Does the fossil record support the idea of biological change over time (biological evolution)?

Yes. The fossil record clearly indicates...

• a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks,

• that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and

• that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.

Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks.

Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact."

End quote
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#95244 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Teens have other escapes, all of them bad, sex, drugs or worse. Be honest, they are missing THE answer and its not Bil/yrs Godless materialism framed in evolution and pushed in the schools and media.
You're a crude, cynical LIAR. A major (and thoroughly dishonest) proselytizing tactic for you hillbilly pastor types is to claim everything is awful and things have never been worse and the youth are going to hell in a hand basket, etc., when in fact war, violence and crime are at all time lows, church attendance near all time highs, volunteerism and other good factors among youth has never been higher, etc.

You engage in what's called the Arsonist/Firemen Syndrome, namely, you set the fire, then run in and proclaim you have the tools the put out the fire, thus making yourself look like a hero.

No one here is fooled.
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The Framers of our country would be sick to see where this country is right now and where it's going.
Speculative, self-serving BS. You could just as easily claim the Founding Fathers would be amazed and impressed with what we have done with their country in 240 years.

In any case, WHO CARES what the sainted FF would think? We live TODAY and OUR world, not THEIRS. They thought black people were worth 2/3 of a human being and woman didn't even count in their minds as voters.
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why they inserted "Creator" in the Constitution, we have abandoned it and are paying the terrible price.
How us exactly where the word "Creator" appears in our American Constitution.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#95245 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree Evolution is certainly the science philosophy of this age,.
No, LIAR, evolution is NOT a philosophy. It is a demonstrated scientific theory. You lying Jesus Freaks NEED evolution to seem like a philosophy so that you can compare it to your threadbare, pathetic fundamentalist Christian theology and claim you are the winner and everyone should believe thee shallow nonsense YOU believe.
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
your side published warnings not to debate in this country a dozen years ago. They used lots of excuses, the attendees don't understand, the other side uses trickery, and on and on.
And they are right. You liars schedule these debates so you can pack them with ignorant fundamentalist comrades and then you run the Gish Gallop on the scientist who has agreed to spend time with you.

You DO know what the Gish Gallop is, don't you?

A major reason why scientists won't debate or even give you Christian creeps the time of day is because to do so would bring them down to YOUR level and give you a standing that is completely undeserved in this discussion.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#95246 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry to be the one to enlighten you, but to say that Darwin's views of microbiology and genetics are 'proven' show that it's not me that's behind. Darwin was into the 'Pangenesis' theory, where he thought the environment could add genetic information within that living generation, and pass it on. He was wrong, that has to happen for evolution to work, right?
Trust me, you spread nothing but darkness whenever you speak.

And Darwin's basic understanding of evolution was eminently correct and is used to this day, although we have come far beyond it because of DNA knowledge, etc.

Darwin knew nothing about genetics, since it had not yet been invented. And yet the basics of his theory stand today as PROVEN FACT!
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't work because there's no mechanism to get it to work, so just write words, draw pictures, tell stories and attack the other view.
The mechanisms of evolution are simple: descent with modification by means of genetic mutation, drift and sexual recombination, filtered by natural selection.
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so man is without excuse."
Will and still holds true.
Yeah, yeah, Paul the A__hole claims that "because sunsets are pretty, our religion is true and anyone who disagrees is a fool and without excuse." Pathetic, self-serving apologetical BS.
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The definition of 'science' is - it must be testable, repeatable, verifiable and observable. That's illogical from 1-4 above, and from experience.
Evolution is eminently "testable, repeatable, verifiable and observable." Your not one of those MORONS who think that you actually have to BE THERE and see something in real time in order for it too be scientifically verifiable, are you?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95249 Jul 12, 2013
_Susan_ wrote:
Hello Dude, everyone
Howdy

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#95250 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry to be the one to enlighten you, but to say that Darwin's views of microbiology and genetics are 'proven' show that it's not me that's behind. Darwin was into the 'Pangenesis' theory, where he thought the environment could add genetic information within that living generation, and pass it on. He was wrong, that has to happen for evolution to work, right?

Removed for space or what I am now calling taking out the trash.
I am overjoyed to be the among those that continually enlighten you. I will address the first part of your post for now.

We were talking about evolution and now you throw in his views on microbiology and genetics and combine it with another OUTRIGHT LIE. Gosh and golly gee whiz guy this is more of that trickery and deceit you have come to rely on in lieu of the facts. Genetics as a field didn't even exist when Darwin published his work and microbiology was in its infancy at best. Now I think Darwin is a genius in his own right, but you give him the paranormal ability to form views on subjects that didn't exist. That is some weird but awesome tribute to the man, but I think a bit much. In any event, I never said proven anywhere in my post. I certainly wouldn't have said proven in regard to your fabrication. What were his views on molecular biology and particle physics?

You are not only behind, but I think you resemble your position in a very real way.

You are confusing Lamarkism with evolution. A common error but not unexpected from your stellar performance so far. Whatever Darwin's views were leading up to formulating the basis for the theory of evolution, he was clear when he published. The theory of evolution does not include nor is it reliant on inheritance of acquired characteristics. Since you don't even know that much, it isn't surprising how confused you have everything else. How can you not even know or understand that which you are trying to trash? What are they teaching you kids at that home school?

Just a note. The posts on topix remain accessible after posting. You know that right. Anyone can go back and compare what we were talking about with your fabrication here. You get that right? Just wanted to check. It seems like you think this is all in a vacuum and you can post any crap you want and it will have to be accepted. Sort of like how your religious education was presented to you.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#95251 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>

Man has only lately the technology to OBSERVE what's going on,
Not according to the start of your post. You said Darwin could formulate views about fields that didn't even exist during his lifetime.

Again, if I had to lie as much as you do, I would begin to question my own beliefs and be ashamed in any regard. Are you sure your lord isn't a dark prince?

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#95252 Jul 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Not according to the start of your post. You said Darwin could formulate views about fields that didn't even exist during his lifetime.
Again, if I had to lie as much as you do, I would begin to question my own beliefs and be ashamed in any regard. Are you sure your lord isn't a dark prince?
As SBT said "Man has only lately the technology to OBSERVE what's going on" Key word observe.

Now you come back with formulate,,,, Hate to tell you but Observe and Formulate are very very different. A person of the intelligence that you claim to have should know that. LOL

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#95253 Jul 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Since Christians accept evolution I know not of what you're referring with this "Godless materialist evolution". If you mean that evolution doesn't mention God then I point out that neither does the Godless materialist gravity. Note how gravity, also a scientific concept is just as materialistic.
I fell for gravity on the very first encounter, but I couldn't stand her obsession with material things. She really brought me down.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#95254 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Since Crick, we now know Darwin was mistaken,(he even had bears jumping into water and becoming whales - good imagination for sure!), but once you push the ship of macro-evolution away from the dock (mistaking it for mirco-evolution, as Darwin did), with a 90 year start,(Crick, and interrupted by Medel,)-
http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_1.htm
As pointed out by others, the discovery of the structure of DNA and Mendelian genetics are some of those recent advances that have aided in our understanding and refinement of the theory of evolution. Not the sharpest kid in general science were you.
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
even good science couldn't stop it. Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), postulated that the structures are so complex and the data so extensive that evolution has no chance to cause major CHANGES to life at all. Hence he wrote the book "Panasperma", being not attached to evolutionary Dogma, that the information may have come here on space ships, why;

1. You have tremendous data storage @ the chemical level for compaction.(they think about 3 GB of code for humans),smaller than any drive that man can build. By accidents -

2. You have a language convention between the data and the machines,(a triple code-interesting, but language convention requires intelligence, you can't run apps in the wrong basic), by accidents -

3. You have no write-heads in a cell, only READING heads.(a functional apparatus of high complexity and perfect efficiency)- by accidents

4. You have a replicating system in the cell and an archive (mDNA & RNA). What an accident!
If only poor old Johann Friedrich Miescher had read your post first. It would have saved him a lot of time. And Erwin Chargaff, well he would have been pissed off just the same, but maybe not if he had known that the one to one relationship of the DNA nucleotides he discovered was meaningless because DNA hadn’t been discovered yet. SBT, you are a fountain, neigh, a fountain of the deep of scientific information that no one knows.
Here is another piece of information that I didn’t know. I was not aware the Francis Crick had written a book called “Panaspermia.” In fact, I don’t think he wrote a book called “Panspermia” either. Now you are right, he did turn an interest to the origins of life and write a book called “Life Itself.” Maybe that was a mistake in the particular piece of propaganda you read before writing this poorly supported post.
In any event, you continue to make classical fundamentalist mistakes about evolution. Are you sure you aren’t in some sort of competition to see who can make the most mistakes? Evolution is not about the origin of life, but about how life had evolved from seemingly simple forms to more highly adapted forms.
I do find it amusing that you are willing to hitch your wagon to a meteor or a starship in an effort to refute the theory of evolution in support of your fundamentalist belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. I knew reading your post would be funny and you didn’t fail to deliver.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 4 min say it aint so 7,707
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 7 min Mr Pip 414
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 8 min _FLATLINE-------- 78,569
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 8 min andet1987 5,679
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 10 min _FLATLINE-------- 9,660
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 10 min Chilli J 4,617
Thinking Out Loud....Feel Free To Say What's On... 12 min Dr Wu 26
motorcycle traveling stories 55 min Sublime1 34
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Observer 159,944
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 2 hr OB Historical Soc... 250
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr NinaRocks 18,025
Word Association (Jun '10) 2 hr say it aint so 27,012
More from around the web