Creationists

[Photonic]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.

Meh. Says you.

Twist the words of your Holy Book as much as you want then.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.

 

[Photonic]

I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.

I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.

 

[LOki]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.

I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?

I thought not.

I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.

Not with the one and only creator from the bible.

 

[koshergrl]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.

I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?

I thought not.

I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

No, I know exactly what the difference is. I do use logical fallacy occasionally because it's really easy to distract retards like yourself with it.

But the difference between me and you..I also have substantive arguments, and I argue to the POINT, instead of continually interjecting random topics, and pretending those are what's being argued.

And if I have a point, I prove it. I don't post lies and pretend I've made a point. That's all you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.

Why exactly is it a problem, precisely?

The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.

Lol, yeah okay buddy. We have a long list of transitional fossils. There are far more than that site shows, especially once you understand what conceptually constitutes a transitional fossil.



Okay...? Parental genetics having a hand in your own is not exactly a new idea in the field of biology. We all were taught punnet squares and the work of Gregor Mendel in high school biology class.



Except we know for a fact the information isn't present. Mutations are caused by errors in DNA code, when the DNA is replicating itself. That causes new sequences of DNA, ones that are only marginally different than the parent, but still different. If the same information was constantly floating around the gene pool, we'd end up with clones during reproduction.



Wouldn't the appearance of bigger heads in our evolutionary past to accommodate bigger brains count as a 'morphological' change?



Not really, we can see and study mutations, not so much for God. We know mutations cause change in organism, we can see DNA replication in action.

So I'm not sure why you want to throw in the God bit. It doesn't really fit in at all.



What the devil is a 'family' precisely? We have in fact seen the rise of new species, both in nature and laboratory experiments.





Your straying into abiogenesis, something which evolution keeps mum about. These two questions are essentially the same, because other organisms have some degree of intelligence as well, even if they may not be able to solve calculus or have some other human marker of 'intelligence.'



I'm not sure what you mean by this. We do see new species arising at the cell and germ level. You've heard of superbugs, correct? Strong strains of diseases that can withstand medicine? That's natural selection in action.



Well, we can. In fact I just gave an example. You just tend to ignore anything contrary to your view, and then give a flimsy reason to ignoring it. The other question has no relevance to what you're trying to get at, but it's good to note we call them errors in DNA transcription.



Except their not exactly the same as your parents, in biology that's called a clone. You still don't seem to understand mutations or even how things evolve, or even the time it takes.



Like themselves, but not an exact copy. If you have set of parents A, and they have children B. Well, B is certainly very much like A, but B has it's differences in DNA as well. B has kids called C, and C certainly resembles B, but still has differences as well. Let's skip ten or twenty generations, all the way down to some descendents, we'll call them Z. Z certainly resembles its parents, Y, but have marked differences.

Now, how much resembles does Z have to A? This is how evolution and genetics work, the answer is they won't resembles each other, because the original DNA is slightly altered every time. Eventually it won't resemble what you started with, because so much has changed. This is why if you take a rabbit from now, and look at a rabbit from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they won't look quite the same. And if you could look at a rabbit from that many years into the future, it still wouldn't be an exact copy of a rabbit from today.

There's really good analogy a scientist filmed. He made a straight line, and then walked around the city he was in and found someone to trace the straight line. Then he asked someone else to trace the line the first guy he asked made. And then he found someone else to trace the line the second guy made. And so on and so on. Eventually by the end, the line didn't resemble anything close to the original straight line.



There aren't many for a variety reasons, chief among them being that rocks from the Precambrian go through metamorphic changes.



Well, that or Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. Richard Dawkins is one of the people who take the side of gradualism.

Also, evolution is the theory as a whole, macro-evolution is just a large span of time. It's not an individual theory in itself. So your quaint little "it's either this or this!" doesn't really have any water.

Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.

Speciation occurs, it has been proven. Stop wasting my time repeating the same buggery nonsense.

Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.

Interbreeding as a theory doesn't hold up biologically, I've knocked it down before. Could you please stop being a broken record?

It shows the dating methods are way off and that dinosaurs did not go extinct as ecvolutionist claim. It shows they didn't die out and birds evoplved from dinosaurs.

If there truly was transitional fossils there would have been no need for the punctuated equilibrium theory. Too many educated paleontologist are on record admitting so.

If you take a bunch of fossils and put some people in a room you can build an evolution tree. Do you realize how many full bodied fossils we have not many. Most animals we have only a few parts of a creature so they had to buils the animal from the imagination. The public goes into a fossil museum and what they actually see is a bunch of creatures created from the mind and they are constructed of plater.

Yes,and you can't prove variations within a family is a result from something other then parental genetics. You are taught genetics in college as well but they add to the theory saying random mutations are the reason for diversity. Mutations are mistakes and in most cases if they cause any change at all it's usually harmful to the organism. But your theory needs a lot of accumulative positive mutations over time for your theory to work,but they are just to rare to create all the diversity we see..

How do you prove our heads are bigger today ? neanderthals heads are no smaller.

Well i have to leave now I will respond further when I return.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.

Meh. Says you.

Twist the words of your Holy Book as much as you want then.

Whoever tries to make the theory fit with the scriptures is the one twisting words of the scriptures.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.

I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.

That is exactly the problems with the theories of men they are an inference of the views already believed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.

I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?

I thought not.

I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

I have seen no logical fallacies on the part of koshergirl,but you have presented many in this thread.

You present no real rebuttals to questions put to you other then rhetoric. Nothing of substance that defends your position. Most of you don't even realize the theory of punctuated equlibrium presents for your theory according to the fossil record.

 

[Youwerecreated]

One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and transitional fossils that connect every divergence of macro-evolution ,where are they ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.

I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.

The words don't have to be twisted, you just have to become an all out science and math denier.


It's one or the other, take the Bible literally, or deny math and science. If someone doesn't take every word in the Bible literally, but believes in a deity, math and science denying isn't necessary.

 

[Photonic]

I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.

I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.

That is exactly the problems with the theories of men they are an inference of the views already believed.

 

[Dr.Drock]

One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?

Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?

 

[LOki]

No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.

I have seen nothing that suggests that any ancient DNA discovered anywhere has not exhibited any degree of degradation. From the articles you cited in this thread, it looked like the most that was suggested was that there was DNA ... I didn't see claims to the effect of complete genetic information from the remains of the organism.

And there's this and this to look at, I suppose.

Schweitzer and Horner (1999) addresses this issue of cellular preservation directly. The observed structures are not red blood cells -

Clearly these structures are not functional cells. However, one possibility is that they represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remnants, such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products, a possibility supported by other data that demonstrate that organic components remain in these dinosaur tissues.​

And

Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. [Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189)]​

The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.

There are plenty of examples of transitional fossils--and they have been presented, cited, and referenced repeatedly. Your application of Zeno's Paradox is no valid refutation of the evidence.

We know genetics from parents and Grand parents determine the offspring.

Not in dispute. Never has been.

Variations in families can easily be attributed to interbreeding and information already present the same can be said for adapting that the ability was already present.

And where sufficient divergence of genetic variation between different populations within a family prevents members from these different populations from successfully inter-breeding, the result is speciation.

For you, considering your presumption of the homogenous distribution (inconsequential to speciation) of genetic information in a taxonomic family, this verifiable speciation is inexplicable.

For you, considering you presumptive denial of any possible beneficially adaptive role mutation can have in the genetic variation of a population, the genetic variation from inconsequential homogeneity required for speciation is inexplicable.

You cannot eat your cake and than have it too.

The only positive mutations that evolutionist point to only helps with biological issues helping in adapting not morphological changes.

Yet they are the recent and verifiable ones that unambiguously refute your claims that mutations can not be adaptively beneficial. Such verifiable evidence that mutation can ineed be beneficial, cripples your suggestion that beneficial morphology categorically cannot arise from mutations.

Saying a mutation caused a morphological change is no different then saying God created it like that.

It's entirely different in that an explanation that is by definition unexplainable, is different from an explanation that is explainable and is not inherently dependent upon the invention of an inexplicable explanation.

In fact, saying "(an unexplainable) God created it like that," is literally no explanation at all.

Every group of organisms exp mutations but we do not see new families arising.

That doesn't mean that there is no evidence that strongly suggests that the accumulated weight of genetic variations is the basis of morphological differentiation at the family level.

And come to think of it, ... you're wrong; if we are seeing mutations in populations of organisms, and we are seeing segregation of population along morphological lines due to genetic divergence, then we literally ARE seeing the rise of new families ... IN PROGRESS, if not in final actualization.

There is no mechanism, at least none submitted, that plausibly describes how genetic variation is limited to maintaining a species.

There is no evidence that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.

There certainly is; there may not be proof, but there is evidence. What there is no proof or evidence of is an intelligence that imparted intelligence to us.

There is no evidence that non-life can produce life.

There most certainly is evidence that non-life produced life. The undeniable fact of reality that spontaneous interactions between non-living things happen, and that it is through interactions of non-living things that life is sustained, and the continued propagation of life is made possible, are all evidences that non-life can produce life.

There is so much bacteria we should be seeing new species contantly arising.

And we do. Examples have been provided to you.

If random mutations can cause positive morhological changes ,why can't we point to these positive morphological changes ...

Denying that mutations can cause positive morphological changes is just a specific denial belonging to the broader denial that mutations can cause any morphological changes. The failure to see that mutations can cause positive morphological changes does not lie in any failure to have them pointed out to you.

... and why is there far more harmful mutations then positive mutations.

Because "beneficial" is both specific and relative, whereas mutation is not.

We see it time and time again that two parents produce what their genetics say the offspring will be.

The only folks that dispute this are Lamarckians ... opponents to the theory you also oppose.

Every family of organisms produce offspring like themselves.

Not necessarily exactly like themselves though.

They only have genetic data to produce what they are.

They have no control what-so-ever regarding what that genetic data contains, its fidelity to it's own genotypes, or what combinations of their genetic data will be passed to their progeny.

This has been observed through selective breeding. Through this selective breeding we can see change with the very first offspring from cross breeding as well.

This observation is in no way in conflict with evolutionary theory; but unmodified make no accounting what-so-ever for any morphological impacts that a mutation might have.

There are no transitional fossils linking the precambrian to the cambrian. Fact is we see many fossils dating way back in time according to evolutionist but yet with all the mutations they exp they show no morphological changes at all with the same organisms today.

These are bold statements, considering that there are certainly examples of transitional fossils linking pre-Cambrian life to Cambrian life--Take lobopods -> Anomalocaris, and Bomakellia -> trilobites, Wiwaxia and Halkiera -> Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida, for examples.

Gradualism has to be shown for macro-evolution to be a viable theory.

I'm not sure this is true, but regardless, gradualism is evident in the fossil record. Gradualism is evident in the existence of ring species, gradualism is evident.

Furthmore, there is no sensible explanation of the mechanism that prevents microevolution from leading to macroevolution.

Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.

No one says they do, ... except Creationists describing some anthropomorphic evolutionary strawman.

Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.

Family anf species have different meanings, and species cannot not interbreed successfully. Variation in families is due to genetic differentiation above the species level ... by definition, evidence of macroevolution.

Breeders and farmers can rely on genetics to produce what they want, i don't understand why evolutionist can't see the obvious.

I can't see why you can't see that they do. In fact, there is NOTHING about selective breeding that in any manner what-so-ever diminishes in any manner anything in evolutionary theory ... rather, it supports it fully.

 

[LOki]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.

I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?

I thought not.

I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

No, I know exactly what the difference is. I do use logical fallacy occasionally because it's really easy to distract retards like yourself with it.

Logical fallacy is intrinsic to your intellectual paradigm. No one but you is fooled by this attempted dodge of yours.

But the difference between me and you..I also have substantive arguments, ...

You have yet to bring a single one ... despite every opportunity to do so.

... and I argue to the POINT, instead of continually interjecting random topics, and pretending those are what's being argued.

You provide a point you're more comfortable with, and then you assign it to your opponent.

And if I have a point, I prove it.

Apparently you have no point then.

I don't post lies and pretend I've made a point. That's all you.

Right there are two lies you've posted. BRAVO!!!!!

 

[koshergrl]

The sad thing is you really believe you've made a point of your own, when all you do (and keep doing) is make my point for me.

 

[LOki]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.

I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?

I thought not.

I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.

I have seen no logical fallacies on the part of koshergirl, ...

Your intellectual dishonesty is well documented, and there's really no reason I can see that you should draw a line at selectively avoiding the patent logical fallacies she applies.

... but you have presented many in this thread.

Or projecting your lack of moral and intellectual integrity on to me. I note that you didn't bring evidence to support your accusation despite having the opportunity to do so.

If there's so many, why is that?

You present no real rebuttals to questions put to you other then rhetoric. Nothing of substance that defends your position.

You've had your ass handed to you argumentatively, with the full substance of verifiable evidence and valid logic. You have only brought denial of verifiable reality and your pathetic application of faulty logic.

Most of you don't even realize the theory of punctuated equlibrium presents for your theory according to the fossil record.

You say "punctuated equilibrium" as if you have any idea of what it means, is inconsistent with what I've said, and believe it is a refutation of any argument I have made. And you do so without any substantive defense of your position. None.

 

[LOki]

One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?

By the verifiable fossil record which strongly suggests that organisms have been changing for millions of years. We ignore your patently invalid question on the basis of its deliberately false premise. We are under no obligation to explain your obvious denial of reality.