Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#3004 Nov 16, 2013
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha, what a joker you are.....This mindless garble does nothing and proves nothing....You are wasting your time trying to dismiss that which cannot be dismissed...the creation of God.......I see by your name you have put a lot of blind faith in evolution......
1...Verifiable.....nothing in evolution is verifiable...only suppositional fantasies BELIEVED in by foolish brainwashed people such as yourself...
2...The pattern of illogical claims and faith-based fantasies and assumptions flowing from evolution apologists makes evident the level of increased desperation in trying to disprove God exists and created all things.
3...Christians are not "xtians"....Trying to insult us that way only shows how desperate and uncouth you really are.
4...Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had nothing to do with man having general knowledge/intelligence/logic.. ..It only had to do with the knowledge of good and evil.
You atheists love to misinterpret the scriptures to suit your lies.
5...There is no fading of Christianity and creationism....It is doing just fine.......and time is definitely NOT on the side of the ignorant theory of evolution.....It is its greatest enemy....It is utterly impossible for any creature to slowly evolve over periods of millions of years into that which no one has guided and end up being well-designed and functional and amazingly compatible.......
6...I suggest you use your God-created brain and use a little common sense instead of listening to idiotic fools who dream up impossible scenarios with no proof and then put them into textbooks as if they are fact.......The only facts available are those that prove the intelligent design abundantly evident in all of creation.......
The Platypus Terrorizes Evolution
www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/06/the-platypus...
Prove Evolution is False: Even Without The Bible
www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-eve...
Debunking Evolution: problems between the theory and reality; The false science of evolution
www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
More education for you, an "X" is also known as a cross, Jefferson and Madison used the abbreviation in their letters, it's just shorthand just like Xmas. So if you want to call Jefferson and Madison uncouth, have at it. The abbreviation has been around for a long time.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3005 Nov 16, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
The video was for people actually wanting to learn, not you.
I'm waiting to read those debates where you crushed biologists, too see if your arguments hold up and how actual scientists respond to them. Still waiting. Anyone can claim to be a biologists on a thread here on Topix, is that thread all you got?
I read some of it earlier, and that was far from any crushing, at least on your part.
Nice to see all you have on offer is blowing air out of your butt. Well done!

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3006 Nov 16, 2013
....and yet after majority deleterious mutations and negative epistasis in relation to 'beneficial' mutations and where the lucky ones against all odds makes a major sweep, an evo only has faith holding an organism back from extinction. No research. Well that's just great folks!

So I suppose with Oli stuck on his merry go round of hero seeking and Blind only popping in with spam as well, the thread is dead for any evo talent.

Does everyone now accept the theory of evolution? Of course not.

Why? Because evolutionary data, as flawed and biased as it is in favour of TOE, still better aligns with a creationist a paradigm than an evolutionary one.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#3007 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Does everyone now accept the theory of evolution? Of course not.
Why?
Because of religous bias, nothing else.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3008 Nov 16, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of religous bias, nothing else.
I posted science. You are still blowing out of your behind.

Since: Sep 12

Cebu, Philippines

#3009 Nov 16, 2013
Take a deep breath and hold it while clenching all pelvic muscles and look in the mirror.

2 things:

1. your pupils will dilate
2. your mind will instantly change

Primates are not capable of this, this is your starting point in understanding humans are not animals.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3010 Nov 16, 2013
dandate2 wrote:
Take a deep breath and hold it while clenching all pelvic muscles and look in the mirror.
2 things:
1. your pupils will dilate
2. your mind will instantly change
Primates are not capable of this, this is your starting point in understanding humans are not animals.
The differences in molecular machinery, Y chromosome differences demonstrate a human does not share a common ancestor with a chimp or any other so called human-ape.

A human being is an organism that is capable of sophisticated language and communication skills, reasons with abstract thought and is a furless obligate biped that expresses the Neu5Ac oxygen molecule. Chimps and other apes do not meet this criteria.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#3011 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted science.
Yeah, you mentioned something about "the fall". I remember now. Very convincing.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3012 Nov 16, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you mentioned something about "the fall". I remember now. Very convincing.
However confirmation of a hypothesis that can be generated on any basis from abiogenesis to the fall of Rome, is testable and falsifiable, regardless of your ignorance and ability to be an evo parrot puppet.

Adaption is not what results in common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales.

For now I am the one that has presented research that speaks to restrictions and limits to the genomes inability to adapt. You have presented your opinion and every side wind you can think of, and therefore have no more credibility than a squarking parrot that can repeat "they said so".

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to it ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.
olasonn

Norway

#3013 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
However confirmation of a hypothesis that can be generated on any basis from abiogenesis to the fall of Rome, is testable and falsifiable, regardless of your ignorance and ability to be an evo parrot puppet.
Adaption is not what results in common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales.
For now I am the one that has presented research that speaks to restrictions and limits to the genomes inability to adapt. You have presented your opinion and every side wind you can think of, and therefore have no more credibility than a squarking parrot that can repeat "they said so".
There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability.
In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.
Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
All data demonstrates an organism has limits to it ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.
I've replied to those links before, but you seem to just ignore that.
The research and articles you link to doesn't say what you want them to say, and when you then top it of with a link saying that research can't be trusted...what's the point of linking to other research papers?????

Let me ask you this.
Why do you think so very few professionals reject evolution, and ONLY those with a religious bias, and not all religious professional but those with a very specific interpretation of some part of the books they consider holy, do so?
olasonn

Norway

#3014 Nov 16, 2013
Another great resource for those interested in learning something about evolution:


Yes, made by an actual professional.
He has a ton of other videos as well, all great!
https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
olasonn

Norway

#3015 Nov 16, 2013
Science is truly fascinating:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24588-p...

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3016 Nov 16, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
I've replied to those links before, but you seem to just ignore that.
The research and articles you link to doesn't say what you want them to say, and when you then top it of with a link saying that research can't be trusted...what's the point of linking to other research papers?????
Let me ask you this.
Why do you think so very few professionals reject evolution, and ONLY those with a religious bias, and not all religious professional but those with a very specific interpretation of some part of the books they consider holy, do so?
Actually restating research is NOT presenting empirical research to demonstrate the unexpected has a solution. Neither is posting links and not speaking to them. What you are doing is posting to save face on forum. We know you are an evolutionist. Now you need to demonstrate why, with more than "they said so". Only evo puppets hanging off strings need to be so simplistic.

If creation is true, then organisms will be shown to have limits to their ability to adapt outside of familial groups. The validation of this prediction also challenges the basis of TOE.

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability in realtion to climate change.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten ...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1 ...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

There is no more than speculation that any of these limits spoken to above will not or cannot take a species into extinction over billions of years.

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to its ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.
olasonn

Norway

#3017 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
All data demonstrates an organism has limits to its ability to adapt.
Nope, the bacteria research I linked to is still going on and no limit in sight. You just want it to be that way..or should I say NEED it to be that way. That's what you get when you start off with the conclusion and then try to fit the evidence around it.
The opposite of science.
olasonn

Norway

#3018 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Now you need to demonstrate why, with more than "they said so".
Well to start off, there are no other competing theories on how life got to where it is today. You could say it wins by default...but let me continue.
Second, there is an enormous amount of research on evolution and the ToE has withstood 150 years of testing and is stronger than ever.
Third, new technologies discovered since the theory was first proposed, like DNA-mapping, confirms the theory.
Fourth, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus by close to all experts in every field of science.
Fifth, the only ones refusing to accept it all share the very same religious bias.

There is absolutely no reason to doubt it's verasity.

There are no gods, get over it.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3019 Nov 16, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well to start off, there are no other competing theories on how life got to where it is today. You could say it wins by default...but let me continue.
Second, there is an enormous amount of research on evolution and the ToE has withstood 150 years of testing and is stronger than ever.
Third, new technologies discovered since the theory was first proposed, like DNA-mapping, confirms the theory.
Fourth, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus by close to all experts in every field of science.
Fifth, the only ones refusing to accept it all share the very same religious bias.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt it's verasity.
There are no gods, get over it.
The evo puppet strikes again refering to the bluster of the majority and 150 years of falsifications. DER!
olasonn

Norway

#3020 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The evo puppet strikes again refering to the bluster of the majority and 150 years of falsifications. DER!
Yeah, JUST 150 years of research SUPPORTING the ToE.
What do you have to show for? Nothing.
Get to it!

Why don't you just admit that it's just because of the faith you happen to belong to, most likely due to family or geography...or both?
Your faith is no different from other faiths, they're all made up by people trying to understand the world they lived in without tools and knowledge to understand it.
Your god is just one of thousands people have made up over the years. Nothing special and no more real.
Get over it.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#3021 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually restating research is NOT presenting empirical research to demonstrate the unexpected has a solution. Neither is posting links and not speaking to them. What you are doing is posting to save face on forum. We know you are an evolutionist. Now you need to demonstrate why, with more than "they said so". Only evo puppets hanging off strings need to be so simplistic.
If creation is true, then organisms will be shown to have limits to their ability to adapt outside of familial groups. The validation of this prediction also challenges the basis of TOE.
There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability in realtion to climate change.
In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten ...
There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.
Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1 ...
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
There is no more than speculation that any of these limits spoken to above will not or cannot take a species into extinction over billions of years.
All data demonstrates an organism has limits to its ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.
Let's recap for Oli the hero.

I have presented data suggesting limits and constraints to the genomes ability to adapt without limits from microbe to dinosaur. Oli has posted spam.

I posted more and more research to support my claims. Oli learned to post links and leave the rest up to my imagination.

Oli, in a word, you're a boofhead without even one scientific bone in your sad little body, and not good for anything other than poking for fun.
SamBee

Winter Garden, FL

#3023 Nov 17, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Since atheists don't beleive in any gods, that makes the question flawed.
Can atheists sin ?
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#3024 Nov 17, 2013
SamBee wrote:
<quoted text>
Can atheists sin ?
Since there are no gods, there are no law of the gods, therfore the questions is flawed.

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.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
SDA main PILLAR coming DOWN! (May '14) 2 hr Lay Worker 3,493
mainline SDAs, what about the 1335,and the 1290... (Feb '12) 2 hr Lay Worker 492
At the Tomb 2 hr MRS STEENBERG 33
Holy Spirit changes lives? (Jul '14) 2 hr useful 11
False Prophet Jeanine Sautron (Nov '08) 4 hr whyuwannkeepsinni... 435
SUNDAY represents GOD who is LOVE (Aug '11) 5 hr sitka happy 4,646
EXAMPLE of one in a CULT 5 hr sitka happy 2,395
The Investigative Judgement is False Doctrine 11 hr useful 182
More from around the web