Creationists

[cbirch2]

Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.

That and our morhoplogical similarities.

The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.

What??

I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..

you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?

The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"

If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.

No.

So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?

So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.

Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes

 

[LOki]

Yes and if you had used it that way, it would have been correct.

Unfortunately, you didn't.

You're a miserable wordsmith, that's the beginning and end of it. Your copy is laughable and you need to learn to edit your own crap or suffer criticism and ridicule from anyone who can write (or edit) and is subjected to it.

Your overbearing hubris is just hilarious.

Let's just catalog the criticisms from someone who alleges she can write and/or edit:

1. You deny the distinction between what a rationale is, and what a rationalization is.
2. After looking up "rationalizing," you deny its existence, and you still refuse to accept that there is a distinction between what a rationale is, and what a rationalization is.
3. During all of this you are in resolute denial of the gerund, such that you repeatedly insist that a verb cannot be applied to another verb.
4. Then finally, having your retarded nose thoroughly rubbed into both the reality of the existence of the term "rationalizing" and the existence of the gerund, you now deny the unambiguous reality that in this clause ...:
   ... you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that ...​
   ... the term "rationalizing" is used precisely (and correctly) as a gerund; "rationalizing" being the object of the verb "apply."

Someone who cares about you, or cares about the positions you defend, would ask you to please STFU, as you clearly have no idea what you're discussing when you talk about any sciences or English. The pride you take in your obvious stupidity is just embarrassing to your peers.

For my part, I ask that you please, please, please keep exposing your retarded and dishonest nature so I may continue to enjoy pointing it out in the fatuous face of your obtuse denials of reality.

 

[LOki]

Debunking evolution.


Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

Debunking evolution? What a laugh!

Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.

Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?

Practice what you preach

Look here, douche.

I'm not the one here who misrepresents the evolutionist's account of evolution, AND the science that supports it, AND Biblical cosmology and biology in order to advance my point of view. That is 100% you, pal--it's 100% intellectually disingenuous, and you and your Creation "scientists" (along with your Creation "science") have been thoroughly exposed as cavalier travesties comprised of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy.

 

[LOki]

In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.

Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.

Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith. You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.

ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\

ra·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing

Definition of RATIONALIZE

transitive verb

1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as

a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>

b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​

The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.

Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.

Nonsense. He was exposing himself as an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard--nothing more.

Circular reasoning,and using rational thought.

Circular reasoning is the hallmark of your superstitious paradigm, and is incompatible with rational thought. Your creation "science" is founded firmly in circular reasoning, and evolution science is clearly NOT.

It does take faith to believe as you do because there is no evidence to show it happened like evolutionist claim, and that is what they don't want you to know.

There is BOATLOADS of evidence! It's been brought to you repeatedly, you intellectually dishonest fucktard!

You people ,once you start get hitting with the facts you turn your attention on the bible which none of you clearly understand.

This is utter nonsense. You are engaging in pathological projection. There are no actual facts of reality that I, or any evolutionist you have engaged in here, have actually disputed. Every "fact" in dispute has been one of your patent errors of fact, baseless presumptions, or ridiculous strawmen; and each of them has been thoroughly exposed.

It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.

Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?

Look here, retard. Just as I pointed out to you for Veith, you can't eat your cake and have it too. The Bible account is literal and inerrant, or it is not; it is illegitimate and intellectually dishonest to make and deny each claim as it suits your rationalizations.

 

[Woyzeck]

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.

I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier.

I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.

If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.

Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.

You are the one who said we evolved because we have bigger brains then apes but yet neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans.

Why would neanderthals have bigger brains then us since they are human human ?

We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?

Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.

You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.

Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.

We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.

 

[Woyzeck]

While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.

Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

And that site falls into the same trap that your lazy copy and paste article did. Would you please stop repeating yourself and offer some actual responses, or do you not wish to be taken seriously?

If you don't look at both sides of the argument how can you reach a proper conclusion ?

I've looked at your arguments and I've responded to them. You haven't defended them at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What??

I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..

you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?

The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"

If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.

No.

So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?

So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.

Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes

I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.

I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.

There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?

Once again all you can point to is similarity between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.

All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Debunking evolution? What a laugh!

Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.

Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?

Practice what you preach

Look here, douche.

I'm not the one here who misrepresents the evolutionist's account of evolution, AND the science that supports it, AND Biblical cosmology and biology in order to advance my point of view. That is 100% you, pal--it's 100% intellectually disingenuous, and you and your Creation "scientists" (along with your Creation "science") have been thoroughly exposed as cavalier travesties comprised of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy.

That is true, because you don't understand the theory as has been pointed out.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith. You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.

ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\

ra·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing

Definition of RATIONALIZE

transitive verb

1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as

a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>

b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​

The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.

Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.

Nonsense. He was exposing himself as an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard--nothing more.

Circular reasoning is the hallmark of your superstitious paradigm, and is incompatible with rational thought. Your creation "science" is founded firmly in circular reasoning, and evolution science is clearly NOT.

There is BOATLOADS of evidence! It's been brought to you repeatedly, you intellectually dishonest fucktard!

You people ,once you start get hitting with the facts you turn your attention on the bible which none of you clearly understand.

This is utter nonsense. You are engaging in pathological projection. There are no actual facts of reality that I, or any evolutionist you have engaged in here, have actually disputed. Every "fact" in dispute has been one of your patent errors of fact, baseless presumptions, or ridiculous strawmen; and each of them has been thoroughly exposed.

It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.

Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?

Look here, retard. Just as I pointed out to you for Veith, you can't eat your cake and have it too. The Bible account is literal and inerrant, or it is not; it is illegitimate and intellectually dishonest to make and deny each claim as it suits your rationalizations.

I will ignore your responses from here on out, it is pointless to argue with someone who is not educated well enough in the field to argue it.

Talk to you later punk.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier.

I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.

If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.

Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.

You are the one who said we evolved because we have bigger brains then apes but yet neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans.

Why would neanderthals have bigger brains then us since they are human human ?

We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?

Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.

You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.

Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.

We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.

Exactly,and God does possess all the answers.


I never said we are descended from neanderthals. I said neanderthals could be the result of too much inbreeding.

How do you explain their brains bigger then modern day humans ? What did they evolve from ? They're humans period.

Who have we descended from ? How do you know this ?

 

[cbirch2]

No.

So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?

So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.

Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes

I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.

I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.

There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?

Once again all you can point to is similarity between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.

All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.

Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...

So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?

Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....

 

[LOki]

Then we just disagree.

You're free to disagree, however the reality of the situation proves the contrary.

I have answered this before,if God exists he knows the facts he is not searching for it.

I guess you're right God is not involved in the scientific method because he is not looking for facts he created facts.

Prove this with verifiable evidence and valid logic, please.

And no, you have not yet done this; you've managed only to stolidly deny the plenitude of valid arguments and verifiable evidence presented to you, and all of your "evidence" thus far has been validated ONLY by question-begging rationalizations.

 

[LOki]

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

I don't deny genetics, i believe every living organism is a product of parental genes. The same with Asexual organisms they are what they are because of the genes.

you are clearly in some denial of the relationship that genotype has with phenotype, and you have not presented a single valid argument for why you assert this denial.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?

So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.

Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes

I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.

I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.

There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?

Once again all you can point to is similarity between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.

All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.

Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...

So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?

Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....

No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.

 

[LOki]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

The entire fossil record is evidence of these morphological changes for which mutations contributed to sufficient divergent (and beneficial) changes in genotype, that the resultant divergence in phenotypes resulted in speciation.

 

[cbirch2]

I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.

I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.

There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?

Once again all you can point to is similarity between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.

All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.

Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...

So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?

Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....

No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.

Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...

The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring.

Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species.

"There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."

Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?

We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion.

Maybe now your closer to understanding.

 

[Woyzeck]

If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.

Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.



We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?

Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.

You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.

Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.

We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.

Exactly,and God does possess all the answers.

Science doesn't claim to know the answers because it goes against the philosophy of science of knowing how much you don't know and then going to find out about it. There's an air of Socrates in it. God has nothing to do with it, and certainly doesn't have any of the answers if anything of the things you claim are the answers.

I never said we are descended from neanderthals. I said neanderthals could be the result of too much inbreeding.

No no, you asked if neanderthals had bigger brains, how could we have such a morphological change such as bigger brains then? And I answered that it was irrelevant because we are not directly descended from neanderthals, therefore the morphological change was still valid.

How do you explain their brains bigger then modern day humans ? What did they evolve from ? They're humans period.

They're relatives for sure. After all they are part of the genus homo, but to call them human would be inaccurate. I never denied their cranial size. cbirch2 has actually been giving you a fairly good explanation on it.

Who have we descended from ? How do you know this ?

I find it interesting you claim they're humans and than ask me how we know who we're descended from.

The answer you're looking for is homo ergaster and possibly homo erectus as well. We know this through fossils, as well as DNA sequencing.

 

[cbirch2]

Pointing out transitional fossils is pointless. We have plenty. Heres the problem with the whole debate though.

Creationists ask for proof that the skeletal anatomy of apes could progress to that of humans. So we offer skeletons like Australopithecus as a transitional fossil. They then just ask for proof that Australopithecus could progress to humans. We offer skeletons like homo erectus, which show upright stature. Then they just ask us to prove the progress from homo erectus to humans

And this goes on and on until creationists are basically asking something as trivial as how a femur lengthened or a thumb gained another 6 degrees of flexibility.

In other words, creationists will never accept any amount of evidence when it comes to transitional fossils.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...

So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?

Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....

No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.

Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...

The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring.

Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species.

"There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."

Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?

We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion.

Maybe now your closer to understanding.

1. Tobacco
2. potato
3. orangutan
4. hare
5. gorilla
6. deer mouse
7. beaver

These all have the same chromosome count as the chimpanzee,can they all crossbreed ?

It's really not the chromosome count that is important,it's the information in the chromosomes is what really matters.

Humans 46 chromosomes two other species i know of have the same amount as humans.

1. Reeve's Muntjac
2. Sable Antelope

It's the information contained in the chromosomes that shows we are vastly different with the same amount of chromosomes.

Bad argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now i can't explain why humans chromosomes would have went from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. But i can clearly see the difference in the information in each species chromosomes.