Creationists

[Hollie]

Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

 

[UltimateReality]

Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

So are these your own words? Or someone else's you cut and pasted from the Understanding Islam forum?

Were you raised in a Christian home? By your silence I will assume you were, and that my assertions for your motivations for posting here are spot on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

 

[Hollie]

Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

It's difficult to take your questions seriously when your agenda ("evolutionists"?) is in such lock step... or is it Goose Step... with the charlatans at the ICR.

I haven't done a search but I suspect your questions are premanufactured and can be found at the ICR website.

I have no reason to believe that you have any familiarity or have had any study program involving any of the biological sciences. That is why you have posted silly youtube videos demanding that I "refute" them. That's the danger you create for youself. When you press a fundie religious agenda wherein you specifically use falsified data, where you specifically reject any and all facts and evidence that refutes such agenda and when you hurl such juvenile attempts at insult with terms as "evolutionist", Darwinist, etc., it becomes abundantly clear that your only agenda is to browbeat people with your gods.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Montrovant]

Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolution even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

It's difficult to take your questions seriously when your agenda ("evolutionists"?) is in such lock step... or is it Goose Step... with the charlatans at the ICR.

I haven't done a search but I suspect your questions are premanufactured and can be found at the ICR website.

I have no reason to believe that you have any familiarity or have had any study program involving any of the biological sciences. That is why you have posted silly youtube videos demanding that I "refute" them. That's the danger you create for youself. When you press a fundie religious agenda wherein you specifically use falsified data, where you specifically reject any and all facts and evidence that refutes such agenda and when you hurl such juvenile attempts at insult with terms as "evolutionist", Darwinist, etc., it becomes abundantly clear that your only agenda is to browbeat people with your gods.

Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.

These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

From your source.

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process."

It appears and How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.

Don't sound very convincing does it ?

I have already touched on why it could not have happened naturally.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

How would you apply this thinking to Homo Sapiens, who are VERY poorly suited to just about any environment, requiring skins of other animals in order not to freeze to death, and requiring implements formed from other objects to even have the ability to hunt prey.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolution even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

It's difficult to take your questions seriously when your agenda ("evolutionists"?) is in such lock step... or is it Goose Step... with the charlatans at the ICR.

I haven't done a search but I suspect your questions are premanufactured and can be found at the ICR website.

I have no reason to believe that you have any familiarity or have had any study program involving any of the biological sciences. That is why you have posted silly youtube videos demanding that I "refute" them. That's the danger you create for youself. When you press a fundie religious agenda wherein you specifically use falsified data, where you specifically reject any and all facts and evidence that refutes such agenda and when you hurl such juvenile attempts at insult with terms as "evolutionist", Darwinist, etc., it becomes abundantly clear that your only agenda is to browbeat people with your gods.

Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.

These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?

I think it is pretty odd Hollie is calling you out on this since she cut and pasted verbatim from another forum and pretended it was her own words. In case you guys missed that, go back and check her post and check the link I posted on page 312 post 4679. Her comments on Kurt Vonnegut were STOLEN from another forum. which makes me think it is worthless to continue to debate her.

I also think it odd she hasn't responded to the question of whether or not she was raised in a Christian home. This is pertinent to her agenda, Christian Bashing, and not the healthy exchange of ideas in an intellectual debate.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.

These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?

What are “fundies on my side”? What questions do those fundies on my ignore?

You seem to have no knowledge regarding the process of peer review that separates science form religious claims.

Here again, you display an insensate hatred for science and the process of discovery that defines science.

Here’s some data regarding the science “fundies”
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

Notice that “Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.”


Interesting, no? Nearly 95% of scientists involved in the biological sciences (roughly similar numbers for physicists and astronomers) held no belief in god(s).



Strange how those “fundies” are the ones who actually have study and training in their fields of knowledge.

Strange how you post youtube videos of a psychologist, associated with the charlatans at the ICR, who you suggest is an authority on science. Yet, you demanded that I “refute” the youtube video you posted.

Strange, that!




More recently (2009):

Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

It seems that only one third of scientists hold a belief in god(s). Of course, there are many gods so that the number of scientists who believe in your particular god(s) may well reflect the results of the 1998 data.

Strange how you think that the advances in medical science, for example, are "some crazy and unsupported conclusions". Last I heard, advances in the science of cell biology have helped to cure disease... even disease caused by you gods's blueprint for the cancer cell.

Oh, those evil scientists, if only they understood that prayer and following the advise of those at the ICR would cure disease.

 

[Hollie]

I also think it odd she hasn't responded to the question of whether or not she was raised in a Christian home. This is pertinent to her agenda, Christian Bashing, and not the healthy exchange of ideas in an intellectual debate.

It's not odd at all that spamming the thread is your only contribution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.

I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.

With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.

And every one of these mutations would have to become the norm in the gene pool of a population. It takes a great amount of faith to believe this theory once someone knows and understands the specifics.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.

I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.

With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.

Why didn't the gods simply make chimpanzee and human genes qualitatively and quantitatively different and thus "prove" his / their existence?

Have you considered that your gods have played a cruel joke on you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.

These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?

What are “fundies on my side”? What questions do those fundies on my ignore?

You seem to have no knowledge regarding the process of peer review that separates science form religious claims.

Here again, you display an insensate hatred for science and the process of discovery that defines science.

Here’s some data regarding the science “fundies”
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

Notice that “Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.”


Interesting, no? Nearly 95% of scientists involved in the biological sciences (roughly similar numbers for physicists and astronomers) held no belief in god(s).



Strange how those “fundies” are the ones who actually have study and training in their fields of knowledge.

Strange how you post youtube videos of a psychologist, associated with the charlatans at the ICR, who you suggest is an authority on science. Yet, you demanded that I “refute” the youtube video you posted.

Strange, that!




More recently (2009):

Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

It seems that only one third of scientists hold a belief in god(s). Of course, there are many gods so that the number of scientists who believe in your particular god(s) may well reflect the results of the 1998 data.

Strange how you think that the advances in medical science, for example, are "some crazy and unsupported conclusions". Last I heard, advances in the science of cell biology have helped to cure disease... even disease caused by you gods's blueprint for the cancer cell.

Oh, those evil scientists, if only they understood that prayer and following the advise of those at the ICR would cure disease.

You still don't get it,Neo darwinism is a religious belief. It takes a great amount of faith to accept this theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.

I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.

With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.

Why didn't the gods simply make chimpanzee and human genes qualitatively and quantitatively different and thus "prove" his / their existence?

Have you considered that your gods have played a cruel joke on you?

Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.

Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.

I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.

With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.

Why didn't the gods simply make chimpanzee and human genes qualitatively and quantitatively different and thus "prove" his / their existence?

Have you considered that your gods have played a cruel joke on you?

Or maybe your side is simply wrong.

 

[Hollie]

You still don't get it,Neo darwinism is a religious belief. It takes a great amount of faith to accept this theory.

It's been explained to you both tediously and repeatedly that Darwin's theory of evolution has science status and factual data to support the theory and predictions.

Your continued juvenile tantrums, replete with juvenile attempts at slander with terms such as “Darwinism”, and your insistence that only through the intervention of one or more gods could we account for life on this planet only provides you with the same, non-existent credibility of your charlatan homies at the ICR.

I am convinced that the worst thing that has happened to the fundie creationism propaganda industry is the advent of the web. While providing the fundie conspiracy theorists and charlatans with a wider audience to abuse, it has also provided them with a greater audience for their loony conspiracies, twisted theories and junk science.

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

 

[Hollie]

Or maybe your side is simply wrong.

Not wrong. That is why your saliva-slinging tirades of science-loathing, ICR whiplash inducing conspiracies are so comical.

 

[Hollie]

Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.

Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?

False assumptions and bad analogies.

However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?

Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.

But.... but..... but.... but.....but....