Creationists

[LOki]

Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?

Sure. What of it?

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

 

[UltimateReality]

YES! Growth still happens gradually, but at different rates at different times for different reasons. YES! EXACTLY RIGHT!

NOT EVER does a 3 foot tall child instantly become a 4 foot tall child; the child still grows gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium asserts that evolution occurs gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT a refutation of gradualism, it does NOT contradict gradualism; Punctuated Equilibrium ENHANCES gradualism.

Non-Sequitur.

Individual creatures do not evolve.

No. It is your manifestly faulty notions of evolution and punctuated equilibrium that are contradictory.

No. You have OBVIOUSLY been brainwashed into believing that the Theory of Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium describe, assert, and predict things that they CLEARLY do not.

Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?

Sure. What of it?

Man you like splitting hairs just so you can scream strawman. I think that is your favorite word. You are obtuse.

 

[UltimateReality]

Sure. What of it?

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Poor deflection, not to mention, totally inaccurate and bearing no basis in the fossil record.

 

[UltimateReality]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

 

[LOki]

Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?

Sure. What of it?

Man you like splitting hairs just so you can scream strawman.

Explain yourself.

I think that is your favorite word.

It's your favorite rhetorical device.

You are obtuse.

You are stupid.

 

[LOki]

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Poor deflection, not to mention, totally inaccurate ...

You mean plenty accurate.

... and bearing no basis in the fossil record.

Or any basis in pie making. It's not like the fossil record is the only source of evidence to draw from.

 

[Montrovant]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

I was curious about this, so did some quick searching. Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes Science) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources

Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications. I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not. Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed. In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X. If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.". I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure. What of it?

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

bullshit!

Is that all you have junior,are you forgetting the theory of punctuated equilibrium ? Stasis is evidence agains't all of these so called variations that lead to macro-evolution. The rate of change would have had to been very fast to produce all the living organism's that once lived.

If life was evolving that fast we would see it happening before our eyes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure. What of it?

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Poor deflection, not to mention, totally inaccurate and bearing no basis in the fossil record.

He does not realize the planet is supposedly 4 to 4.5 billion years old, life did not appear until 2 billion years ago, Talk about faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure. What of it?

Man you like splitting hairs just so you can scream strawman.

Explain yourself.

I think that is your favorite word.

It's your favorite rhetorical device.

You are obtuse.

You are stupid.

Careful about calling someone stupid,you don't even understand the theory or theories supporting evolution well enough to debate it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

I was curious about this, so did some quick searching. Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes Science) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources

Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications. I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not. Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed. In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X. If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.". I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.

Montrovant,do you really expect the evolutionist to agree with intelligent design people. They are to heavily invested in saying everything happened through natural processes absent of an Intelligen Designer.

The point being is that your side wants to claim the ID scientists are not real scientists and they have no empirical evidence for their theory and that is just false. The more evidence discovered the less viable the theory of evolution becomes. I am speaking of macro-evolution because micro-evolution is a fact and neither side denies it.

What evolutionist observe are micro-evolutionary change, and it does happen naturally and that is why they go further with their explanations because they reason if micro-evolution can happen why not macro-evolution.

Because the creator used the same type of substances to create all,that is why evolutionist claim we are all related. But what they ignore is DNA information is vastly different and that is why we seem related but yet we are vastly different. Now that they know there is litlle to no junk DNA they have to explain why is all our DNA being used for something but yet there is no junk DNA where they can reason the junk DNA is left over from our ancestors,and they simply are not in use anymore.

But of course you will find opposing views to what I have stated but the evidence is left for each person to agree with evolutionists explanations or not. Many of us have decided that everything we see did not simply happen by chance.

 

[konradv]

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.

And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years? Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.

 

[Youwerecreated]

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.

And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years? Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.

Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.

With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.

Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.

Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.

 

[konradv]

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.

And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years? Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.

Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.

With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.

Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.

Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.

Calling 2 billion years a "short time" is ridiculous. That's why you keep coming back to "we don't see it today". You have no conception of how long a time that is. I don't see an obstacle to get around, I see someone who who reached a conclusion and is constructing a proof out of bit and pieces and irrelevancies.

 

[UltimateReality]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

I was curious about this, so did some quick searching. Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes Science) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources

Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications. I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not. Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed. In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X. If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.". I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.

If you took the time to read some of the descriptions of the studies, not every study points to the Designer. Many of the studies point out the SERIOUS FLAWS in the so called EVOLUTIONARY science with the Designer being the more appropriate alternative explanation.

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.

 

[UltimateReality]

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.

And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years? Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.

And did you ever stop for a moment and wonder why that is? Life does not spontaneously happen anymore. Everything alive today received that spark millions of years ago. I guess this begs the question, if it doesn't happen so easily now, I mean, not even if we try to force it, how do you think it became so tenacious?

 

[UltimateReality]

And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years? Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.

Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.

With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.

Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.

Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.

Calling 2 billion years a "short time" is ridiculous. That's why you keep coming back to "we don't see it today". You have no conception of how long a time that is. I don't see an obstacle to get around, I see someone who who reached a conclusion and is constructing a proof out of bit and pieces and irrelevancies.

2 Billion a short time ridiculous??? Einstein and Carl Sagan wanted to believe the universe was infinite. How does 2 billion years rate on the infinity scale??? I can imagine exactly how long 2 billion years is. If human history (10,000 years) can be represented by a one foot long time line on the ground, then 2 billion would extend back 37.87 miles, about my daily commute to the office. Now how much change has happened in 10,000 years? Let's see... weather, wooly mammoths and sabertooth tigers? So 200,000 times that amount of time is enough to overcome some serious probabity arguments?

 

[daws101]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

it's a creationist site....therefore breaking the first rule of science objectivity .....so it pseudoscience.