Creationists

[Hollie]

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

Are you confused about your own arguments for gods?

As fundies would present it, their gods were poofed into existence from an obvious hierarchy of gods who later poofed into existence humanity.

Such silliness.

Still with the "gods" thing. You obviously took the short bus to school.

Still with the utterly silly exemptions you make for your gods.

 

[daws101]

WE are animals....

First get the vocabulary on the same page. Animals has two meanings, if you mean "animals as opposed to humans." Just like calling humanity by the term "man": We are all included in the term MAN, but if you mean "man opposed to woman" then "man" in that context means something different. Same with the term "animal" so please clarify first to avoid confusion.

yours is a distinction without a difference..
it's also meaningless minutia

the only distinction necessary is that we are mamals..
the rest is obvious.

 

[daws101]

Yes,and everyone on your side of the issue have chosen that road.

Well yes, because to the fundies in this thread, the bible is the only book anyone needs to read.

Well it is the only book on the planet that accurately tells our origin.

ahhh no it's neither accurate or the whole story .
every culture on earth has creation myths .
the bible is no more accurate then any of them.

 

[daws101]

Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.

false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?

I am still waiting for a viable answer from you why didn't the superior traits of survival didn't get passed on through natural selection to the human genepool ?was the trade off human abilities that make us superior and put us at the top of the food chain?

asked and answered.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings. ...

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.

 

[Hollie]

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings. ...

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.

You will find that the two YEC'ers are bible literalists. They despise all of science. A rigid, literal interpretation of the bible is all they understand.

You may also find one of them to be a serial stalker.

 

[Hollie]

Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.

Macroevolution actually is real science.

Lies and falsehoods from YEC'ers are easily exposed.

What isn't exposed is your education level that makes you think you have the right to call others out on theirs.[/QUOTE

As noted, creepy stalkers and their lies and falsehoods are easily exposed.

 

[daws101]

Nothing you have stated thus for has been proven to be true.

this was one of those times where keeping your mouth shut and letting people think your an ignorant asshole might have been appropriate.
oops! too late.

Daws you think to much of youyrself Mr. theatre woman or man I am not sure.

having no real rebuttal, YWC flails and fails...
in my experience people who make sexual innuendo remarks are uncomfortable with their own sexuality....

 

[Hollie]

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.

You live in fanatasy land.

It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist Giraffe Conspiracy™ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.

 

[daws101]

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.

You live in fanatasy land.

It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist Giraffe Conspiracy™ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.

they've
yet to learn (if ever) the old rule , if you have nothing to say, say nothing.

 

[pjnlsn]

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

actually no you can't
the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
evolution is not a claim it's fact.
there are no shoulds in science shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
in the case of transitional fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
more are being found all the time .

but you keep on rationalizing !

Actually, yes I can.

Evoltuion has NEVER been proven. That is a fact.

Evolution is not science.

There should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils if evolution occurred.

Besides what evolutionist call transitional fossil aren't even that.

Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's not science or not proven, it is, at the very, very least, likely.

As to those differences, and as wrote elsewhere: "The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia."

What is not known is that, if there was change in the life forms on this planet, and presumably you would add the condition: "except if involving a being one would call godly," that there must have been a certain amount of animals, must have passed a certain amount of time, must have been conditions over that time, and must have been excavated those locations so as to produce that rough amount of fossils in the public record. Perhaps without the last part.

 

[UltimateReality]

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings. ...

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.

That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.

 

[UltimateReality]

FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.

No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Are you confused about your own arguments for gods?

As fundies would present it, their gods were poofed into existence from an obvious hierarchy of gods who later poofed into existence humanity.

Such silliness.

Still with the "gods" thing. You obviously took the short bus to school.

Still with the utterly silly exemptions you make for your gods.

Oh you poor dear. What a sad result of the dumbed down democrat/socialists public school system.

 

[UltimateReality]

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings. ...

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.

Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?

 

[UltimateReality]

Lenski's lab did an immense amount of careful work and deserves much praise. Yet the entirely separate, $64,000 question is, what do the results show about the power of the Darwinian mechanism? The answer is, they do not show it to be capable of anything more than what was already known. For example, in my review of lab evolution experiments I discussed the work of Zinser et al. (2003) where a sequence rearrangement brought a promoter close to a gene that had lacked one. I also discussed experiments such as Licis and van Duin (2006) where multiple sequential mutations increased the ability of a FCT. Despite Lenski's visually startling result -- where a usually clear flask became cloudy with the overgrowth of bacteria on citrate -- at the molecular level nothing novel occurred.

Another person who follows Lenski's results closely is Dennis Venema, chair of the Biology Department at Trinity Western University and contributor to the BioLogos website. Founded by Francis Collins, BioLogos defends the compatibility of Darwinian science and Christian theology. I agree that the Darwinian mechanism (rightly understood) is theoretically compatible with Christian theology. However, I also think Darwinism is grossly inadequate on scientific grounds. A number of BioLogos writers think it is adequate, and attempt to defend it against skeptics of Darwinism, most especially against proponents of intelligent design such as myself.

Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos - Evolution News & Views

 

[Hollie]

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.

That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.

P
What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.

Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about

 

[ima]

Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.

That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.

P
What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.

Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about

Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?

 

[Hollie]

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.

Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?

You should have taken the time to read what you tried in vain to respond to. You continue to have great difficulty in associating the posts of others and responding with coherent sentences that address the salient points.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.

Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?

Your feelings are hurt. We understand that. Your continuing efforts at proselytizing are going nowhere and your attacks on science with endless cutting and pasting from creationist ministries amounts only to making you look foolish and desperate.

This would be a your time to post your nonsense of gargantuan fonts in failed attempts to defend your ignorance.