Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Of course, that's madeup young earth nonsense meant to fool children. We can't repeat the formation of a star, or a large meteor strike from millions of years ago, or formation of an iron-cored planet. Nor would we ever be expected to do so, to get a good understanding of them. You are a fraud, and you reserve this idiotic standard only for science that contradicts your iron aged fairy tale.True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction.
Which, of course, is another shameless lie form the worst liar on this board. I have caught you countless time plagiarizing, nearly verbatim, content from that site. And I have made sure everyone knows by then posting links to the blogs you plagiarize.Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me
Humans are bipedal apes,
And then a lie, in the next breath. You just can't help yourself.but I do have countless lying on your part accusing me of lying and lying about evolution. You got zero evidence
where is the chicken that became a dinosaur? If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.
You are the fraud. You harp on Christians because they are unable to produce GOD in a test tube. And then you get in a huff when you are asked to perform any experiment that creates a new species from among fruit flies ---- not simply just a breed (if even that).Of course, that's madeup young earth nonsense meant to fool children. We can't repeat the formation of a star, or a large meteor strike from millions of years ago, or formation of an iron-cored planet. Nor would we ever be expected to do so, to get a good understanding of them. You are a fraud, and you reserve this idiotic standard only for science that contradicts your iron aged fairy tale.True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction.
And then a lie, in the next breath. You just can't help yourself.
"Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.Macro evolution is the fairy tale. True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction. Please see the following: https://wisehealthwealth.com/science-proves-evolution-wrong-human-evolution-is-false"Afraid" of it? Science is about truth, not fairy tales. The creation myth is just that: a myth. Scientists ridicule it. They aren't afraid of it.The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life. The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory. There was prior to the 1850s.
Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation? It's not new. It's not like they do not know about it. What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.
No, it promotes pure fantasy as truth. The Bible is a work of fiction.The Bible doesn't promote bad science as truth: Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?
All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.Uh...what? You write like a child.You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
And then a lie, in the next breath. You just can't help yourself.but I do have countless lying on your part accusing me of lying and lying about evolution. You got zero evidence
All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.Uh...what? You write like a child.You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright | Science | Smithsonian
The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures.
"Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
.
.All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.Uh...what? You write like a child.You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright | Science | Smithsonian
The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures.
Your basic circular reasoning fallacy. That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy. What a contradiction!
No monkeys are bipedal today. If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal. They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys. We also do not see any monkeys becoming human. Humans are humans. Monkeys are monkeys even though you look like a monkey.
So you are wrong again.
"Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution. How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011. Your so-called evolution is behind
"The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether S. sciuri obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.
The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word evolved means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have not evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
The Bible doesn't promote bad science as truth: Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?
The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says. This is especially noteworthy in the field of science. The science which backs up the Bible are many: The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up. Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
Science and the Bible.
Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
Bible: Science and History
I didn't say that. We still need science texts. Just not evolution texts except for microevolution. The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.
Wrong. Creation scientists are very up-to-date on science matters. More than secular or atheist scientists in some ways. Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe was expanding. You are jumping to conclusions stating it had to do with BBT.
Creation scientists - creation.com
Now, can you name a couple of secular scientists that showed anything to do with evolution that was observable, testable and falsifiable? Us so called "slow" creationists will believe it if you do.
