Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...

So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?

What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?
​

Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.


They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.

If lions and tigers do not interact in the wild, how are they mortal enemies?

Well because when they come face to face they will fight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfQGn4xCq8]Tiger vs Lion - Tiger wins the fight! - YouTube[/ame]

Why do you think they don't live together ?

Now living in captivity they still show lions are too territorial.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This should read

"... DNA Code Barrier,is a creationist principle"



Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions.

There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes.

How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)



Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool



Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works.



And genetically stronger ones survive.



lulllz kk

Do creationist hold scientific degrees ?

I actually have yet to see someone that dedicates their time to young earth creationism and actually has a respectable degree. If someone has a degree in management, i dont care what their opinion is on biology...

That said im sure some do hold good degrees...their numbers are just a lot few than those that think the earth is over 6000 years old.



And somehow that has to be bad? A change in genetic information is just a change in amino acids and a change in protein expression. Different proteins have different uses. Small segments of proteins can certainly be changed so that it yields some beneficial usage beyond its non-mutated function. This isnt even debatable.



Im not denying there can be information loss. Where do i deny that? The loss of genetic information is certainly a valid mutation....



and a change to new information. If adenine changes to thymine, thats a change of information. The old information, adenine, is lost. The new information, thymine, is added...

Get it?



....

..........

A human and a chimpanzee share something like 99% of their genes. So by and large, you do contain the genetic information of other creatures. Again, thats just a fact. DNA is just a sequence of nucleotides.

"The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons.[35]"

So you do have the same genetic information as primates do, by and large. If your DNA sequence was ACGTACGTACGT, a primates DNA might be TCGTACGTACGT. Everything but the T is the exact same information.

The difference between us is that we are separated from a common ancestor by many many generations, and both groups have gained and lost information as theyve been separated. For you to give birth to a chimpanzee, that would require that the normal errors in DNA replication somehow happen on the exact right nucleotides and in the exact right amount. its just infinitely not possible.

But it doesnt work like that the other way around.



What have you proved? Youve just cried that information cant be added. Even "answersingenesis.com" disagrees with you there.

OMG "offspring are always the same species as their parent" is the argument of someone that doesnt understand evolution.

Two populations of big cats become separated. The gene pool of each population randomly diverges because of random mutation and the environment deciding which ones dominate the population. As time passes there is no way to guarantee that the random mutations that come to dominate each gene pool will be similar. In fact all common sense would say they would be different. As time passes those groups would be significantly different, and their genomes may no longer be compatible. When fertilization occurs, there are a lot of A's where T's should be, or C's where G's should be, or whichever combination. Theres no way that you can prevent these random changes in bases from happening in random places.

But within each groups, each successful offspring was only marginally different from their parents.

Do you get it yet?

Genetically stronger survive, is that not what i said ?

Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?

because thats the definition of a pure bred so we continue to artificially breed them like that....

There is no such thing as "pure". There is only a combination of nucleotides that we recognize as a distinct lineage and through mating we preserve the gene pool as best we can, without being able to control random mutations in reproduction.

Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.

Youve presented me with a thoroughly contrived explanation of what you think evolution is and how it works. You have less understanding than a 7th grader.

There is more evidence if mutations cause change they cause more harm then good.

No i Have always understood mutations come at a loss of genetic information.

Just like it is impossible for mutations to do what you say. They don't accumulate because they are easily removed from the gene pool.

You are avoiding answering the question truthfully,the truth is a purebred animal is the result of of a loss of information. They only possess the genetic information to produce what they are.

So you're saying vets and breeders don't know what they are talking about ?

For your information many of us creationist hold degrees in the same fields as evolutionist.

They are pure because of the DNA information will only produce what they are. This is not hard to understand.

7th grade education Then why must i continue correcting you ?

Your whole theory rests on speculation not observed evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...

So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?

What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?
​

Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.

God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.

Right?



Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?



Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?

And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.

Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.

What?

And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?

Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.

The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.

Get it?

I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

If you want to learn something read this article.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side of the debate ,none of your pretty graphs can change the facts.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.


They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.

If lions and tigers do not interact in the wild, how are they mortal enemies?

Well because when they come face to face they will fight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfQGn4xCq8]Tiger vs Lion - Tiger wins the fight! - YouTube[/ame]

Why do you think they don't live together ?

Now living in captivity they still show lions are too territorial.

LOL, I think you are missing the common use of mortal enemy. Just because animals fight doesn't mean that phrase really fits. Your use of it was just funny.

 

[LOki]

Your misinformation regarding punctated equilibrium exposed.

The basis in logical fallacy of the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours exposed.

Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:

God exists before time putting him outside of the universe.

There was no time, obviously, before time for this "God" of yours to exist in.

Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..

Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.

If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?

Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?

Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough.

Breeds belong to the same species; they are properly called "sub-species." Sub-species within a family can only successfully breed if the mating pair belong to the same species.

But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind, ...

"Kind" is term belonging to bariminology, and it is meaningless in the sense you're using it now. You said earlier that "kind" meant "species," and if you were intellectually honest, you would stick to that.

... very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.

This is entirely, grossly infact, wrong. "Mutts" are a fine example of the commonplace nature of members belonging to separate sub-species within a species breeding.

Darwinist must have a way for dogs to produce non-dogs, ...

This misinformation. Evolution DOES NOT require dogs to produce non-dogs; if it did, the entire theory would collapse.

There is no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to any kind of plant or animals DNA.

There is. It's been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.

The DNA code barrier is a huge problem for you evolutionist.

There is no problematic "DNA code barrier" that prevents "new and beneficial genetic information" from being introduced to plant or animal DNA.

Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."

You have no proof nothing exists outside of the universe.

He doesn't need it; you do though.

If you assume all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator what is your evidence ?

It is NOT assumed that "... all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator."

You are attacking a strawman, AGAIN!

However, you ARE obligated to explain (with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic) why you arbitraily presume life is NOT the product of a natural process.
Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I predict that you will demand that you have already done so, but will refuse to provide a link, or ANY OTHER substantiation for your claim; obligating me to once again point it out to you, with the fact of reality that no such explanation exists being proof.

you have to show evidence for two things. #1 evidence of the natural process that created all life ...

These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.

#2 evidence there is no creator.

The lack of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic supporting the existence of this "creator" of yours, is evidence that this "creator" of yours does not exist.
Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I feel obligated to point out that here is a distinction to be made between "evidence" and "proof", which I am confident that you're willing to ignore with your predictable response of, "That doesn't prove a creator does not exist."

And let's just be absolutely clear here, the burden of proof rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.

So ... what's up with that?

Mutations form from mistakes they are errors do you understand this ?

If mutations are truly mistakes as you claim here, it strongly suggests fallibilty in the "design" of this "intelligent" creator you keep referencing for no reason founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

The way you think there is never information loss that is blatantly false.

I don't think you understand that the theory of evolution makes no claims that if there's a change in the genetic information of one member of a species, that ALL members of that species suddenly experience that same change.

Anytime there is a change from the origional information it comes at a loss of the origional information.

Not true. Just because some information is not expressed, it does not follow that it must then ALWAYS be lost.

If the genome still contains genetic information from other creatures then why do animals not give birth to something other then what they are ?

Because evolutionists are not talking about magic.

Everything i said can be verified and proven ...

You mean "refuted" due to lacking verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

however the argument you make cannot be observed.

Really? Are you still denying ring species? Still?

Off spring are always the same species the parents are.

The Theory of Evolution says nothing different, you intellectually dishonest retard.

Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?

Because purebreds are more genetically homogeneous.

Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.

HAHAHA! "Can't refute"? LOLsome!

[Lions and tigers] are just two breeds from the same family.

No. They are different species from the same family.

[Lions and tigers] are genetically close enough to reproduce.

true, yet offspring from such pairings cannot reproduce amongst themselves. Proof enough that they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."

However [lions and tigers] cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies.

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

Really? Then how did they become "mortal enemies?"

There is more evidence if mutations cause change they cause more harm then good.

And you seem to be in denial that the "harmful" ones are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on.

No i Have always understood mutations come at a loss of genetic information.

Then you "understand" at best 1/3 of the story.

Just like it is impossible for mutations to do what you say. They don't accumulate because they are easily removed from the gene pool.

Right. The lethal ones. It's not "impossible" for non-lethal mutations to persist.

you are a glutton for having your ass handed to you on this subject, aren't you?

You are avoiding answering the question truthfully,the truth is a purebred animal is the result of of a loss of information. They only possess the genetic information to produce what they are.

Yet members of other subspecies of Canis lupus still have an abundance of this lost information.

If you're right, how is it that the species still has all that "lost" information? What's up with that?

So you're saying vets and breeders don't know what they are talking about ?

No. We're saying that you don't know what vets and breeders are talking about, you don't know what evolutionists are talking about, and you don't know what you are talking about.

For your information many of us creationist hold degrees in the same fields as evolutionist.

Yeah, but those Creationists that hold such degrees from Sunday School don't count.

7th grade education Then why must i continue correcting you ?

Asserting your misinformation as fact, is not correcting anybody.

Your whole theory rests on speculation not observed evidence.

Of all things, this is certainly one thing that the Theory of Evolution DOES NOT share with your "theory."

I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.

--SNIP--​

What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

If you want to learn something read this article.

You have no honest understanding of Evolutionary Theory what-so-ever, and your insistence upon your macro- /micro- evolution distinction just proves it.

Cbirch the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side of the debate ,...

Then bring it.

... none of your pretty graphs can change the facts.

True. And none of your denials of reality change the facts of reality.

Your magical thinking is just bunk.

And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.

For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your misinformation regarding punctated equilibrium exposed.

The basis in logical fallacy of the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours exposed.

Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:

God exists before time putting him outside of the universe.

There was no time, obviously, before time for this "God" of yours to exist in.

Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..

Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.

If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?

Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?

Breeds belong to the same species; they are properly called "sub-species." Sub-species within a family can only successfully breed if the mating pair belong to the same species.

"Kind" is term belonging to bariminology, and it is meaningless in the sense you're using it now. You said earlier that "kind" meant "species," and if you were intellectually honest, you would stick to that.

This is entirely, grossly infact, wrong. "Mutts" are a fine example of the commonplace nature of members belonging to separate sub-species within a species breeding.

This misinformation. Evolution DOES NOT require dogs to produce non-dogs; if it did, the entire theory would collapse.

There is. It's been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.

There is no problematic "DNA code barrier" that prevents "new and beneficial genetic information" from being introduced to plant or animal DNA.

You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."

He doesn't need it; you do though.

It is NOT assumed that "... all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator."

You are attacking a strawman, AGAIN!

However, you ARE obligated to explain (with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic) why you arbitraily presume life is NOT the product of a natural process.
Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I predict that you will demand that you have already done so, but will refuse to provide a link, or ANY OTHER substantiation for your claim; obligating me to once again point it out to you, with the fact of reality that no such explanation exists being proof.

These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.

The lack of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic supporting the existence of this "creator" of yours, is evidence that this "creator" of yours does not exist.
Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I feel obligated to point out that here is a distinction to be made between "evidence" and "proof", which I am confident that you're willing to ignore with your predictable response of, "That doesn't prove a creator does not exist."

And let's just be absolutely clear here, the burden of proof rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.

So ... what's up with that?

If mutations are truly mistakes as you claim here, it strongly suggests fallibilty in the "design" of this "intelligent" creator you keep referencing for no reason founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I don't think you understand that the theory of evolution makes no claims that if there's a change in the genetic information of one member of a species, that ALL members of that species suddenly experience that same change.

Not true. Just because some information is not expressed, it does not follow that it must then ALWAYS be lost.

Because evolutionists are not talking about magic.

You mean "refuted" due to lacking verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Really? Are you still denying ring species? Still?

The Theory of Evolution says nothing different, you intellectually dishonest retard.

Because purebreds are more genetically homogeneous.

HAHAHA! "Can't refute"? LOLsome!

No. They are different species from the same family.

true, yet offspring from such pairings cannot reproduce amongst themselves. Proof enough that they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

Really? Then how did they become "mortal enemies?"

And you seem to be in denial that the "harmful" ones are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on.

Then you "understand" at best 1/3 of the story.

Right. The lethal ones. It's not "impossible" for non-lethal mutations to persist.

you are a glutton for having your ass handed to you on this subject, aren't you?

Yet members of other subspecies of Canis lupus still have an abundance of this lost information.

If you're right, how is it that the species still has all that "lost" information? What's up with that?

No. We're saying that you don't know what vets and breeders are talking about, you don't know what evolutionists are talking about, and you don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah, but those Creationists that hold such degrees from Sunday School don't count.

Asserting your misinformation as fact, is not correcting anybody.

Of all things, this is certainly one thing that the Theory of Evolution DOES NOT share with your "theory."

You have no honest understanding of Evolutionary Theory what-so-ever, and your insistence upon your macro- /micro- evolution distinction just proves it.

Cbirch the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side of the debate ,...

Then bring it.

... none of your pretty graphs can change the facts.

True. And none of your denials of reality change the facts of reality.

Your magical thinking is just bunk.

And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.

For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.

I believe God created the universe in doing so he created time as we know it. I don't have to prove that God exists i have admitted my belief is based in faith, dummy. If he is gonna deny God exists it is up to him to prove it ,and all life came from a natural process then he needs to be able to show it. Those were his claims i like how you cherry pick.

Kind can mean either species or sub-species get it ?

Don't need to explain Gods existence.

Mutts are from a much larger gene pool because you don't know what you will get in the offspring .where when you breed purebreeds you know what you will get and that shows the gene pool is smaller,you don't have a clue concerning simple genetics.

If macro-evolution is a viable theory that is what you need dogs traits evolving to a point it is a destinctly new organism,in other words no longer a dog. Please learn the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Before you try to discuss it,it only shows your ignorance.

There is no natural process that shows life can spontaneously start on it's own you are lying.

Most evolutionist deny God creating are you just gonna be this dishonest in front of everyone reading this thread.

Wrong anytime a gene mutates to a point it causes change that is a permanent change and the origional gene is no more.So information is lost. You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has.

Homogeneous means they are very much the same and the reason they are very much the same is because they only have the genetic data to produce themselves but thanks for agreeing with me.

Lions are mortal enemies to any big cat that comes into their territory,you didn't understand what territorial means you mental midget. You don't believe animals migrated ?


Now this is really funny and shows your ignorance on genetics harmful mutations are not passed on why do we have over 4,500 genetic diseases and defects and counting ? Contradicted yourself did ya ?

I am a glutton for being amused by the ignorant.

My degree in molecular biology is not from sunday school,it's from the University of Arizona. have you heard of it ?

I corrected him that it's not the number of chromosomes that matter its the information in the chromosome that matters. Remember Mr. 44 chromosome man. I have corrected him that purebreds are from belong to a smaller gene pool. The proof is all purebreds have had information bred out of them and that is why they are their own breed.

Dummy,both terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were terms created by evolutionist and there is a major difference the terms.

Oh and i did bring it and you didn't understand that trait changes have a ceiling or limit but you were not bright enough to understand it when i presented it.

Don't waste my time with your drivel.

Goodnight school is out.

 

[IndependntLogic]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

We see no conflict between science and spirituality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

We see no conflict between science and spirituality.

Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.

Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe

 

[LOki]

Your ignorance regarding the role of genetics in agriculture, and its significance regarding natural selection exposed.

Your ignorance regarding the frequency of cross breeding among sub-species exposed.

Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:

I believe God created the universe in doing so he created time as we know it.

Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?

I don't have to prove that God exists i have admitted my belief is based in faith, dummy.

No. You do. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass. That pass expires the second you say that we have to prove this Creator of yours does not exist.

If he is gonna deny God exists it is up to him to prove it ,...

In the debate regarding whether or not this Creator of your exists, the burden of proof is on you. Period.

... and all life came from a natural process then he needs to be able to show it. Those were his claims i like how you cherry pick.

I cherry picked nothing. I pointed out your illicit shifting of the burden of proof.

And let's just be absolutely clear here, the the burden of proof is on you rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.

So ... what's up with that?

Kind can mean either species or sub-species get it ?

Not in contention. What is in contention is your insistence that members of different species can successfully reproduce. You're just as wrong now as you were when you first tried to make this assertion.

Besides, ligers and tigons are not even sub-species; hence they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."

Don't need to explain Gods existence.

No. You really do. Not to convince yourself, obviously; but to convince us. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass.

We are patronizing you, because you're a retard who is over his head.

Mutts are from a much larger gene pool because you don't know what you will get in the offspring .

You are unambiguously wrong. Purebreds and mutts belong to the exactly and precisely same gene pool. It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.

where when you breed purebreeds you know what you will get and that shows the gene pool is smaller,you don't have a clue concerning simple genetics.

It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.

It is obvious that it is YOU who has no clue what-so-ever regarding genetics. NONE!

If macro-evolution is a viable theory that is what you need dogs traits evolving to a point it is a destinctly new organism,in other words no longer a dog.

You insist that we understand evolution before we discuss it with you, and then you start in with shit that defies what evolution asserts.

If the progeny of a mating pair was EVER a different species from its parents, the theory of evolution would IMPLODE! You are truly an idiot.

Please learn the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Before you try to discuss it,it only shows your ignorance.

I know the difference. I just don't accept your ignorant use of the terms. Instead, you intellectually dishonest douche, YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.

There is no natural process that shows life can spontaneously start on it's own you are lying.

These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Were you not REQUIRED to take organic chemistry in pursuit of your alleged molecular biology degree? Apparently not. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.

Most evolutionist deny God creating are you just gonna be this dishonest in front of everyone reading this thread.

Dishonest? You're just the kettle calling the clean fine china black. You're a retard.

Wrong anytime a gene mutates to a point it causes change that is a permanent change and the origional gene is no more.So information is lost. You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has.

You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has. When a gene mutates, the original gene simply changes. And it does not magically change in every member of the species all at once; so information is not lost "anytime" there is a mutation.

Homogeneous means they are very much the same and the reason they are very much the same is because they only have the genetic data to produce themselves but thanks for agreeing with me.

The impression of agreement was due only to misspeaking. There is less variation among purebreds because of greater homogeneity amongst members of the specific breed; they have the exactly and precisey same gene pool as mutts.

Lions are mortal enemies to any big cat that comes into their territory,you didn't understand what territorial means you mental midget. You don't believe animals migrated ?

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

Now this is really funny and shows your ignorance on genetics harmful mutations are not passed on why do we have over 4,500 genetic diseases and defects and counting ? Contradicted yourself did ya ?

I misspoke. I meant to assert that "lethal" mutations are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on. The harmful ones are, non-the-less, less likely to be passed on ... particularly if the heterozygous diploid is not advantageous.

My degree in molecular biology is not from sunday school,it's from the University of Arizona. have you heard of it ?

Apparently your degree is a joke.

You see, I could tell you that I'm a PhD. candidate in Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics at Columbia University of New York. I could further tell you after presenting some of your notions regarding evolution, genetics and natural processes to Dr. Bosco, Dr. Dieckmann, and Dr. Little, they thought it laughable that anyone with such disregard for science and the facts of reality could achieve any level of academic achievement in Molecular Biology.

But being just internet yakking, this is all entirely meaningless; just like your claims regarding your degree in molecular biology from the U of A.

What is actually meaningful, is your patent disregard for science and the facts of reality; your obvious ignorance of genetics and the theory of evolution; your persistent embrace of logical fallacies and misinformation; and your complete lack of intellectual rigor and integrity.

It is apparent to me that you clearly had no courses in organic chemistry or genetics, or basic biology for that matter; I seriously suspect you had no coursework in molecular biology in the pursuit of your molecular biology degree.

In effect, the credentials you claim are entirely meaningless in light of the specious crap you post.

I corrected him that it's not the number of chromosomes that matter its the information in the chromosome that matters. Remember Mr. 44 chromosome man.

Remember that the number of chromosomes actually did matter some? Most notably to his progeny who would experience a 66% rate of infant moratality in their attempts to have children.

I have corrected him that purebreds are from belong to a smaller gene pool. The proof is all purebreds have had information bred out of them and that is why they are their own breed.

In which if he bought your bullshit, you only succeeded in misinforming someone.

Dummy,both terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were terms created by evolutionist and there is a major difference the terms.

No. There isn't a major difference in the terms--not when used by evolutionists. YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.

Oh and i did bring it and you didn't understand that trait changes have a ceiling or limit but you were not bright enough to understand it when i presented it.

You were just as wrong then, as you are now.

And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.

For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Finding proof that the earth is less than ten thousand years old isn't hard to do, just look around, *if* the earth was some billions years of age, there would be more evidence pointing there, there is not.
2. Everything appears to be new, mountains appear fresh and unaffected by erosion.
3. There is no evidence of age, its only in the scientist minds.
4. They say mankind has been on the planet some six hundred thousand years, were is the evidence of that?
5. There is none, mans history can be traced back, with archaeological digs, and we can never see past six thousand years of history.
6. Its as plain as the nose on your face, this is a young earth, and universe.
7. You need to get your shit together, and wake up.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your ignorance regarding the role of genetics in agriculture, and its significance regarding natural selection exposed.

Your ignorance regarding the frequency of cross breeding among sub-species exposed.

Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:

I believe God created the universe in doing so he created time as we know it.

Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?

I don't have to prove that God exists i have admitted my belief is based in faith, dummy.

No. You do. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass. That pass expires the second you say that we have to prove this Creator of yours does not exist.

In the debate regarding whether or not this Creator of your exists, the burden of proof is on you. Period.

I cherry picked nothing. I pointed out your illicit shifting of the burden of proof.

And let's just be absolutely clear here, the the burden of proof is on you rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.

So ... what's up with that?

Not in contention. What is in contention is your insistence that members of different species can successfully reproduce. You're just as wrong now as you were when you first tried to make this assertion.

Besides, ligers and tigons are not even sub-species; hence they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."

No. You really do. Not to convince yourself, obviously; but to convince us. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass.

We are patronizing you, because you're a retard who is over his head.

You are unambiguously wrong. Purebreds and mutts belong to the exactly and precisely same gene pool. It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.

It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.

It is obvious that it is YOU who has no clue what-so-ever regarding genetics. NONE!

You insist that we understand evolution before we discuss it with you, and then you start in with shit that defies what evolution asserts.

If the progeny of a mating pair was EVER a different species from its parents, the theory of evolution would IMPLODE! You are truly an idiot.

I know the difference. I just don't accept your ignorant use of the terms. Instead, you intellectually dishonest douche, YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.

These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Were you not REQUIRED to take organic chemistry in pursuit of your alleged molecular biology degree? Apparently not. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.

Dishonest? You're just the kettle calling the clean fine china black. You're a retard.

You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has. When a gene mutates, the original gene simply changes. And it does not magically change in every member of the species all at once; so information is not lost "anytime" there is a mutation.

The impression of agreement was due only to misspeaking. There is less variation among purebreds because of greater homogeneity amongst members of the specific breed; they have the exactly and precisey same gene pool as mutts.

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

I misspoke. I meant to assert that "lethal" mutations are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on. The harmful ones are, non-the-less, less likely to be passed on ... particularly if the heterozygous diploid is not advantageous.

Apparently your degree is a joke.

You see, I could tell you that I'm a PhD. candidate in Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics at Columbia University of New York. I could further tell you after presenting some of your notions regarding evolution, genetics and natural processes to Dr. Bosco, Dr. Dieckmann, and Dr. Little, they thought it laughable that anyone with such disregard for science and the facts of reality could achieve any level of academic achievement in Molecular Biology.

But being just internet yakking, this is all entirely meaningless; just like your claims regarding your degree in molecular biology from the U of A.

What is actually meaningful, is your patent disregard for science and the facts of reality; your obvious ignorance of genetics and the theory of evolution; your persistent embrace of logical fallacies and misinformation; and your complete lack of intellectual rigor and integrity.

It is apparent to me that you clearly had no courses in organic chemistry or genetics, or basic biology for that matter; I seriously suspect you had no coursework in molecular biology in the pursuit of your molecular biology degree.

In effect, the credentials you claim are entirely meaningless in light of the specious crap you post.

Remember that the number of chromosomes actually did matter some? Most notably to his progeny who would experience a 66% rate of infant moratality in their attempts to have children.

In which if he bought your bullshit, you only succeeded in misinforming someone.

Dummy,both terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were terms created by evolutionist and there is a major difference the terms.

No. There isn't a major difference in the terms--not when used by evolutionists. YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.

Oh and i did bring it and you didn't understand that trait changes have a ceiling or limit but you were not bright enough to understand it when i presented it.

You were just as wrong then, as you are now.

And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.

For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.

Posting something you don't understand does not make your argument

Trust me i have seen action from the paranormal to convince me there are unseen forces all aroud us.

But like i said i don't need to believe in God to know macro-evolution never happened. It's an impossibility the creator allowed for adaptations thats it.

Let's focus in on how you believe macro-evolution happened. Go into detail explain where and how new genetic information is achieved. Tell what kind of mutations produce the kind of information needed for macro-evolution ?

Then explain to me in detail how life spontaneously started on its own without the aid of a designer. Explain to me what the miller urey experiment proved ?

Lets get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have to travel to meet with my attorney today we will continue this when i return but in the meantime please explain what i have asked of you.

 

[IndependntLogic]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

We see no conflict between science and spirituality.

Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.

Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe

Ah you. The guy who likes to judge the faith of another. So you sit and judge, eh? So much for following the example taught by Christ.

Yes I read the Bible. This is obvious: I know far more about it than you.

Did I say anything about evolution? While the evidence of evolution is obvious, I find flaws in the theory as a whole. That's called reason, btw.

As far as the age of the universe, did I say anything about that? Ah, you're projecting so you can judge again.

So again to the OPer: Not all of us are judgmental fundamentalists like YouWereCreated, here. The majority of us have come to learn that man can fly (this thought was considered heresy), atoms exist (this thought and the science that led to it was considered heresy), people are taller than they used to be (that would be evolution) etc....

Our biggest difference in belief is the "Poof" factor. Not whether evolution occurs (obviously, it does) but rather the Origin of Life and whether there is a living force beyond our understanding.

 

[daws101]

Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.

God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.

Right?



Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?



Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?

And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.



In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.

What?

And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?

Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.

The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.

Get it?

I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

If you want to learn something read this article.

this is not science, it's a another rationalization based of a false premise.
please present testing methods, results and peer reviewed papers .

 

[daws101]

Creation ScienceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[5] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]

Creation science texts and curricula emerged in the 1960s. They focused upon concepts derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible and were overtly religious in nature, most notably linking Noah's flood in the Biblical Genesis account to the geological and fossil record in a system termed "flood geology". These works attracted little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and evangelical Christians until the 1970s when its followers challenged the teaching of evolution in the public schools and other venues in the United States, bringing it to the attention of the public-at-large and the scientific community. Many school boards and lawmakers were persuaded to include the teaching of creation science alongside Darwinian evolution in the science curriculum.[10] Creation science texts and curricula used in churches and Christian schools were revised to eliminate their Biblical and theological references, and less explicitly sectarian versions of creation science education were introduced in public schools in Louisiana, Arkansas, and other regions in the United States.[10][11]

The 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.[12] The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.[4] The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.[12]

MAIN POINT:"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]".

Creation Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

We see no conflict between science and spirituality.

Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.

Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe

Ah you. The guy who likes to judge the faith of another. So you sit and judge, eh? So much for following the example taught by Christ.

Yes I read the Bible. This is obvious: I know far more about it than you.

Did I say anything about evolution? While the evidence of evolution is obvious, I find flaws in the theory as a whole. That's called reason, btw.

As far as the age of the universe, did I say anything about that? Ah, you're projecting so you can judge again.

So again to the OPer: Not all of us are judgmental fundamentalists like YouWereCreated, here. The majority of us have come to learn that man can fly (this thought was considered heresy), atoms exist (this thought and the science that led to it was considered heresy), people are taller than they used to be (that would be evolution) etc....

Our biggest difference in belief is the "Poof" factor. Not whether evolution occurs (obviously, it does) but rather the Origin of Life and whether there is a living force beyond our understanding.

BLASPHEMER! YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!

 

[daws101]

wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.

The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?

thanks for playing (cue buzzer)sorry but again you've spun the meaning to fit your false premise.
As already explained
i'll try to make this simple, a scientific assumption s based on the best available evidence not the lack of it, lets say a paleontologist finds 50% of a t- rex ,say the right half..they can safely assume that specimen has another half.
It not the same as your assumptions about "intelligent design" which assumes facts not in evidence
as to not being able to observe it the fossil record shows it, darwin and many other scientists have observed it in action
germs and viruses do it everyday

if you assume all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator what is your evidence ? You have to show evidence for two things. #1 evidence of the natural process that created all life #2 evidence there is no creator.

asked and answered

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

We see no conflict between science and spirituality.

Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.

Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe

Ah you. The guy who likes to judge the faith of another. So you sit and judge, eh? So much for following the example taught by Christ.

Yes I read the Bible. This is obvious: I know far more about it than you.

Did I say anything about evolution? While the evidence of evolution is obvious, I find flaws in the theory as a whole. That's called reason, btw.

As far as the age of the universe, did I say anything about that? Ah, you're projecting so you can judge again.

So again to the OPer: Not all of us are judgmental fundamentalists like YouWereCreated, here. The majority of us have come to learn that man can fly (this thought was considered heresy), atoms exist (this thought and the science that led to it was considered heresy), people are taller than they used to be (that would be evolution) etc....

Our biggest difference in belief is the "Poof" factor. Not whether evolution occurs (obviously, it does) but rather the Origin of Life and whether there is a living force beyond our understanding.

Just a few questions for you. Do you believe in science ideology over what the bible states ? Not trying to be judgmental , I just don't understand someone saying they are a believer then accept a theory that contradicts the scriptures. Either way you believe poof had to have something to do with the origins of life. I agree with adaptations happening but not evolution there is no observable evidence for it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.

God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.

Right?



Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?



Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?

And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.



In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...



What?

And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?

Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.

The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.

Get it?

I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

If you want to learn something read this article.

this is not science, it's a another rationalization based of a false premise.
please present testing methods, results and peer reviewed papers .

you really don't get it do you. creations look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions of the evidence. because both sides have different presuppositions. What you should ask yourself whose presuppositions are better supported by the evidence ? I think I provided plenty of evidence to support what I believe.