Send a Message
to CreationScience

Comments

84

Joined

Mar 25, 2008

CreationScience Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

Evolution 'not established truth'

Which part of evolution would you like me to talk about?  (Jul 24, 2008 | post #1146)

Grand Island, NY

Grand Island Schools likely to hire teacher

Aw man. One more year and I'll have my elementary education degree! And I live on the island!  (Jul 24, 2008 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

Evolution 'not established truth'

I lack the wit to understand it? Let's see if I can remember what he said.... Hmm... "I don't know the answer to that question". It doesn't take too much wit to understand that one, does it? Yes, variability has been observed. Mutations, natural selection, adaptation, variability, etc... have all been observed. But you assume that it's possible for these processes to result in large-scale evolution, which is completely impossible. I don't copy and paste anything, by the way. You said that it would change our theoretical understanding of HOW evolution occurs- which it should, but it doesn't. The public school textbooks keep repeating that mutations are the raw-material for evolution. It's a bunch of BS.  (Jul 24, 2008 | post #1143)

Evolution Debate

Evolution 'not established truth'

Like I said- most mutations are either neutral or detrimental. The talkorigins article you referenced said the exact same thing. They just like to stress the fact that a large majority are neutral, which I agree with. I've never denied anything about mutations that happen to have beneficial outcomes, but the problem is that the "beneficial mutations are depend on the organism's environment". Just like TalkOrigins says- "A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another." (sickle cell anemia). Oh, and TO makes a complete straw man argument by saying this: "Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model." Evolution of photosynthesis may be an argument from incredulity, but if you believe that photosynthesis evolved without evidence, that's an argument from faith. There is no answer to the evolution of photosynthesis, and for anyone to say that there is- is a liar. Naturalism- First of all, most of scientific discovery and invention has nothing to do with evolution. The manufacturing of computers, putting man on the moon, satellites, and many other things are completely different. These scientists learn about the world, and then make/do things that use what they've learned. Evolution is historical speculation, based on our interpretation of what we see. The point that I was trying to make (and I think some of you missed it) is that it is impossible to study anything outside of nature. God is outside of nature. Evolution is the only explanation that can come about naturally, that's why you guys defend it with your lives.  (Jul 24, 2008 | post #1142)

Evolution Debate

Evolution 'not established truth'

I did? How exactly? My biology professor (at buffalo state college) didn't seem to have an answer either. Remember, you can't just say that I've failed- you have to explain why I've failed.  (Jul 23, 2008 | post #1113)

Gay/Lesbian

Think homosexuality is "wrong"?

Indychick- I have no problem with a homosexual lifestyle. But for you to say that you were "born this way" would be practically identical for me to say that I was born an alcoholic. I have a huge genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. On both sides of my family, alcoholics everywhere. However, I've made a choice. I don't drink. If I don't drink, I will not become an alcoholic. The same goes for homosexuality (and many other things). Scientists have barely found anything that is strictly genetic- a majority of our actions depend on our choices. Our appearances are the aspects of our life controlled most strictly by our genes, such as our skin color or eye color (like you mentioned). Let me ask you something- please don't be offended in any way. If you (and others) were born homosexual, why is it possible for people to become heterosexual by any number of different means? Also, out of the entire animal kingdom, there are only a select few examples of homosexual behavior- all of which are immediately disrupted when a member of the opposite sex is introduced (the famous homosexual penguins).  (Jul 23, 2008 | post #44067)

Gay/Lesbian

Think homosexuality is "wrong"?

Being gay is just like being an alcoholic. Some people have somewhat of a genetic pre-disposition towards alcoholism, and some have a genetic-predisposi tion towards homosexual behavior. It's a choice, that is effected by our environment, family, friends and extremely slightly, our genes. But think about it. If homosexuality was strictly a genetic decision, gay people wouldn't exist, because they cannot reproduce. Their genes would have disappeared a long time ago.  (Jul 23, 2008 | post #44048)

Evolution Debate

proof that god exist!!!

That's a nice analogy, Bob. Oh, and I'm back! After a little while. =) I hope you missed me. Anyway, the puddle analogy doesn't work because we've searched outside of the earth. We've searched as far as possible, and yet we are the only existing life in the known universe. So yes. The earth was created for it's inhabitants, and until you've proven that idea wrong, I will continue to accept it as fact. And puddles can't contemplate their existence. =)  (Jul 23, 2008 | post #75)

Evolution Debate

Evolution 'not established truth'

Hey! Who wants to refute evolution in a single sentence? I do! A single genetic mutation does not have the ability to create or maintain a biochemical pathway. According to nearly every biology text-book, genetic mutations are the "raw-material " for natural selection to work on- leading to larger changes, which (hypothetically) would be evolution. However, by observing these mutations, we find that almost all either neutral or detrimental. In the rare case that a mutation does indeed have beneficial outcomes, it doesn't validate evolution. For example. A mutation in blood cell hemoglobin gives the carrier a complete resistance to malaria. I would consider that a beneficial outcome, wouldn't you? The bad news is that people with this mutation... have Sickle Cell Anemia. Mutation? Yes. Beneficial? Only in certain context. This is the same for nearly every single example evolutionists give as an example of evolution. Pesticide resistant populations? Nope! Natural selection works on a pre-existing populations genes. The ones that are not naturally resistant- die. The ones that are naturally resistant- live. The ones that live pass on their pesticide resistant genes to the next generations, making a whole population of pesticide resistant bugs. This is what you call "micro-evolut ion". I don't like calling it that, because evolution is a lie. Either way, the processes that produce pesticide resistant populations can not and has not resulted in single-cell to cell-biologist evolution. Now, if mutations cannot create or maintain a biochemical pathway, then how did photosynthesis evolve? If you've ever studied what goes on during photosynthesis, you know that it's not a simple process. Don't even try to tell me that photosynthesis evolved from an ancient cyanobacteria either, because cyanobacteria is fully photosynthetic. Why and How did sexual reproduction originate? The production of gametes specifically relies on the opposite sex's ability to produce complimentary gametes. But why evolution? Because science deals strictly in the natural world. There is no other explanation that modern science will accept because of it's blatant bias towards humanistic naturalism. Yes. Evolution is biased science, and if you're going to say any different, you're lying. And for you evolutionists to claim that creationists are biased and that you're not, you're being hypocritical. Evolution is a LIE.  (Jul 23, 2008 | post #1110)

Grand Island, NY

Aiming To Eliminate The Grand Island Tolls.

I drove down to Kentucky a little while ago, and on the way I had to pass through Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Immediately passing into PA the roads were brand new. Almost the whole way from NY to OH I was on brand new roads, yet I didn't pass a single toll (other than the one that allowed me to leave NY). I did not meet a toll as I was leaving PA, and in Ohio, they were in the process of fixing all of the roads that I was on. They were also making new roads! One that hadn't existed before! And I didn't hit a single toll. Now, I know this may be a silly question to ask- but why does NY have terrible roads, and tolls everywhere? If Ohio and Pennsylvania don't have tolls on their major roads, from where are they getting their money to fix the roads? And why are NY roads so poor, yet we hit a toll nearly everywhere we go? I know the answer to this question, I'm just giving you guys something to think about.  (Jul 23, 2008 | post #38)

Evolution Debate

proof that god exist!!!

Water on mars? Seems ok to me. Actually, now that I think about it, I shows that earth is perfectly designed to support life. If the atmosphere was stable enough to support life (however long ago), then it would have. It had water, and that's one of the most important things for life. If there was life on mars, we'd see some fossilization. I like the idea of water on mars. It makes it seem easier to deny abiogenesis. But that's just me. =)  (Apr 9, 2008 | post #68)

Evolution Debate

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahea...

You're right. I reject evolution entirelyAnd in no way am I debating this. The mechanism that leads to an evolution from particles to people does not exist. What does the internet have to do with evolution? Are you suggesting that we have the internet because of evolution?  (Apr 9, 2008 | post #358)

Evolution Debate

What if God absolutely truly does exist?

Yes, many societies have floods. Your point is moot. Geology says Yes to a global flood! We could go back and forth saying "yes" and "no" forever. What part of geology says "no" to a global flood? Yes to a global flood: No erosion between layers of the grand canyon. Rapid burial of fully formed organisms (known to secular scientists as the "cambrain explosion") I could go on, but lets stick to those for now. EADGBE- first question, what kind of guitar do you play? When considering the possibilities for genetic variation, it is definitely able to be expressed in a large population. However, take this large popluation and divide it into (for this example) 10 smaller populations. Each of these populations have the genetic variation of the population, while the actual genetic variability could have been much more before the separation. Let's say that 2 parents (adam and eve) had lots and lots of kids. Depending on the traits that were passed on, their children would look very different from one another, but still keeping the patterns given by the allele frequencies. Dominant and recessive genes could easily be expressed, given a large number of children. Ultimately, this would result in the 10 different populations looking fairly different from each other. This could result in the races that we see today. It all depends on the genetic variation possibilites of the inital 2 people. As a matter of fact, the genetic variation was most likely greatly reduced because of the flood, because the organisms on earth went though a genetic bottleneck. Tell you what, guys. As soon as I am able to come up with a new word that is more acceptable (other than saying "kind" is very close to family) I'll tell you. This is in order to keep the conversation going.  (Apr 9, 2008 | post #176)

Evolution Debate

creation verses big bang

Theistic evolutionists are reconciling their beliefs with the most common world view of evolution. The Bible doesn't mention a thing about evolution. I'm confused on your poition charlie. You say that the day referred to in the bible doesn't mean a 24 hour day, because in the beginning of the universe there was no time. It's only hypothetical that there was no time before the big bang, because no one was there. Also, there's another theory (ekpyrotic universe theory) that might be replacing the big bang in the future. Then, you say that the earth could be 10,000 years old. Those two ideas contradict each other, and I hope you realize it. You sound like the author of The Science of God- but at least he used the golden ratio to devide the cosmic time into something other than "God Time". During my astronomy class, I asked my professor if (in the beginning stages of the universe, after the BB) matter could be expanding at a faster rate than the speed of light. He said that the expansion of matter has no known speed limit. This, in turn, could have created a sort of doppler effect of light in space, when viewed from earth. Of course, this deals almost completely with Big Bang ideas, but does have some implication on creationist ideas as well. What are your thoughts?  (Apr 9, 2008 | post #243)

Q & A with CreationScience

Headline:

Creation Science!

Hometown:

Grand Island, NY

I Belong To:

Buffalo State College

When I'm Not on Topix:

School, Guitar, Work and Video Games

Read My Forum Posts Because:

I don't shout, I discuss.

I'm Listening To:

Some awesome guitar solos

Read This Book:

In 6 Days

On My Mind:

My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad

I Believe In:

A young earth (6,000 years ago +/- 6 days). Noah's flood. God's infallible word. Nintendo is the best.