Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[AllieBaba]

Well duh, anyone with a brain knows the only reason he did that was because of his anti-God agenda.

Dude of course. You think we mine oil and coal for energy? Pfft, yea right. Your brainwashed. Its just so they can perpetuate the evolutionist myth that dinosaurs existed.

That's why I'm here posting links to Berkeley and NYU websites to back up speciation and it's involvement in evolution, it's Satan driving me to do it.

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I did, I wouldn't have made the claim that thing I was accused of was a downright lie unless I'd gone through all 9 pages. It's a lie, but it's what I expect from a liar (Allie).

So please help me out, what does a few scientists having a different opinion on oil have anything to do with disproving evolution or the aspect of evolution known as speciation?

No you people have locked in to oil being the result of dead plants and animals.

It actually came up because a question i asked the genius. Where did all the fossils go if life has existed on this planet as long as some scientist suggest. Because according to the bible the rate of growth 5,000 years ago we went from 8 people to near 7 or 8 billion. That means there should be fossils everywhere we dig that also means there was a lot of people that lived on this planet for 5,000 years can you imagine 70 or 100 million years ? that is just humans consider all the other organisms,it's absurd and its a strong argument against an old earth.

And it's old news that is not the case.

Differing opinion they are findinging it where there were no vegetation or animals your theory has been shot in the butt,get it ?

Yes, your story that shows some scientists view oil as a renewable resource proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.



You've won the debate.

Don't you get it ? mans science is not always reliable when they assume and can't prove it.

Don't applaud just throw money. I need season tickets for the upcoming season of the Arizona cardinals.

 

[cbirch2]

Do you have a clue to what presuppositions are ?

Yea. Like thinking humans didnt evolve. If you think they didnt evolve already no evidence is going to convince you.

Are you suggesting that EVERY scientist of EVERY kind is just biased so they deny evolution? Thats crazy.

I do however think that every creationist "scientist" denies speciation. Thats the definition of creationist.

THEREFORE YOUR CAMP HAS THE PRESUPPOSITIONS

Who said humans didn't evolve?

They just haven't evolved from or into non-humans.

Again, arguing to an argument that was never made.

Any time i say humans evolve i mean in the context of the entire theory of evolution. Next time i say "humans evolved", just remember i mean "humans evolved from primitive primates".

 

[cbirch2]

No you people have locked in to oil being the result of dead plants and animals.

It actually came up because a question i asked the genius. Where did all the fossils go if life has existed on this planet as long as some scientist suggest. Because according to the bible the rate of growth 5,000 years ago we went from 8 people to near 7 or 8 billion. That means there should be fossils everywhere we dig that also means there was a lot of people that lived on this planet for 5,000 years can you imagine 70 or 100 million years ? that is just humans consider all the other organisms,it's absurd and its a strong argument against an old earth.

And it's old news that is not the case.

Differing opinion they are findinging it where there were no vegetation or animals your theory has been shot in the butt,get it ?

Yes, your story that shows some scientists view oil as a renewable resource proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.



You've won the debate.

Don't you get it ? mans science is not a always reliable

Don't applaud just throw money. I need season tickets for the upcoming season of the Arizona cardinals.

"Mans science isnt reliable". Again, remember the distinction between science and what people just wrote down a long time ago. Science means things which apply Sir Brancis Bacons scientific method. Those things have been fairly accurate since the creation of the scientific method.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. You just think "real scientists" work for creationist institutions.

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

Only tenets that have not been proven

And there is a lot of that.

 

[cbirch2]

Dude of course. You think we mine oil and coal for energy? Pfft, yea right. Your brainwashed. Its just so they can perpetuate the evolutionist myth that dinosaurs existed.

That's why I'm here posting links to Berkeley and NYU websites to back up speciation and it's involvement in evolution, it's Satan driving me to do it.

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

Well not necessarily, there could be evidence that backs it up. Possibly doesnt mean 0, you have weird definitions.

What there is zero proof for however is that atoms decayed differently, human DNA was perfect, that every animal can fit on a boat, or that god created the world.

 

[cbirch2]

Here's how it works for YWC and other fundies, they have the "answers" (the Bible), then they have to find the question that best fits their answer.


It's the opposite of how real science works.

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

Only tenets that have not been proven

And there is a lot of that.

Lol like that the electromagnetic forces within an atom arent a direct result of certain mathematical and physical phenomena between quarks and gluons.

Go on, find the one go to creationist argument....im waiting for it...i know its coming...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol right. Theyve called into question almost every scientific tenet.

Im sure that the physicist that first modeled radioactive decay fudged the numbers to support evolution....

We will cover that to,by the way are you not getting tired of me proving you wrong ?

Lol um when did you ever once prove me wrong? The only time i was ever wrong was the coelacanth, and not even for the reason you thought. I still dont think you understand that one.

Do i need to make another list.

You don't remember saying oil was from dead plants and animals ? and trying to prove it with wiki.

You don't remember saying macro and micro were made up terms by creationist ?

God i don't have time for this nonsense, You get the point.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Dude of course. You think we mine oil and coal for energy? Pfft, yea right. Your brainwashed. Its just so they can perpetuate the evolutionist myth that dinosaurs existed.

That's why I'm here posting links to Berkeley and NYU websites to back up speciation and it's involvement in evolution, it's Satan driving me to do it.

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.





It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's why I'm here posting links to Berkeley and NYU websites to back up speciation and it's involvement in evolution, it's Satan driving me to do it.

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.





It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Hey,there are debates going on on how to define a species but conveniently that is your only so called evidence for speciation. They can't even agree on this.

 

[AllieBaba]

Could you at least pretend to understand English?

From the Berkeley site:

"Evolutionary biologists would love to know what happens next: will the colonizing iguanas die out, will they survive and change only slightly, or will they become reproductively isolated from other Iguana iguana and become a new species?"

You notice that there is a question. That is not evidence that it has been proven. It's a statement that says they would like to have proof.

Do you get the difference?

Is English your second language? Perhaps you should change your search settings to allow you to read things in your own language?

 

[cbirch2]

We will cover that to,by the way are you not getting tired of me proving you wrong ?

Lol um when did you ever once prove me wrong? The only time i was ever wrong was the coelacanth, and not even for the reason you thought. I still dont think you understand that one.

Do i need to make another list.

You don't remember saying oil was from dead plants and animals ? and trying to prove it with wiki.

You don't remember saying macro and micro were made up terms by creationist ?

God i don't have time for this nonsense, You get the point.

Oil is from plants and animals you tard. Three links saying "oil may have formed where it wasnt supposed to" is far from enough evidence to overturn 100 years of science.

As for macro and microevolution, thats about all you have dude. And im still right. No biologists use those terms. Yea its on wiki, that means someone on the internet knows the term.

 

[AllieBaba]

Your co-speciation link does nothing to confirm evolution results in new species.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[snip for simplicity and point],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.


It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Very good. Any basic college text in genetics would cover these elements of the science, and cover them in sufficient interdisciplinary detail, so as to settle the issue, once and for all.

As an aside, I notice none of the macro-evolution deniers have bothered to answer the questions I would pose students in a first semester course in animal genetics.

Does anyone know how many chromosomes chimpanzees have? How many do humans have? Someone CLAIMED to have taken SEVERAL courses in genetics, hmm. Why don't I believe that? Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

If you're talking about me, I said I had taken one term of college genetics, a year of biology, a term each of archaeology and anthropology.

 

[cbirch2]

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.





It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Hey,there are debates going on on how to define a species but conveniently that is your only so called evidence for speciation. They can't even agree on this.

Im sure berkley puts controversial evidence on its website without a disclaimer....lol

Obviously in the eyes of berkley evolution (including speciation) is fact.

 

[cbirch2]

Allie or YWC, do either of you care to comment on chromosome 2?

 

[AllieBaba]

And that stupid evolution site does a lot of what you're doing..which is to claim this is all fact without actually coming out and saying it has been proven, or providing the evidence.

Which is the beef most creationists have with public schooling. They're perpetuating lies because uneducated ignorami, like yourself, think this shit is real science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, your story that shows some scientists view oil as a renewable resource proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.



You've won the debate.

Don't you get it ? mans science is not always reliable when they assume and can't prove it.

Don't applaud just throw money. I need season tickets for the upcoming season of the Arizona cardinals.

IF it is "not always reliable", it is NOT SCIENCE! It is an UNTESTED HYPOTHESIS!

Please, learn to use the term "science" properly!

Now, as to the other logical fallacy people here are putting forth, namely that since we ARE able to create a renewable fuel from hydrocarbon substances, that does NOT disprove history of fossil fuel deposits on the planet. We have been making fuels from hydrocarbons for years! Ever hear of Ethanol? Ethanol is a hydrocarbon fuel, made from plant materials. So are some forms of alcohol. They are flammable, they burn, they can be made in months or a few years. They do NOT possess the SAME properties as heating oil, gasoline, nor coal, but they can be used for similar purposes. See the fallacy in logic there?

No some of the other articles did it that you ignored, but i figured you would latch on to the one that you could try and spin.

I have been debating these issues for thirty years and it's always the same thing you people refusing to accept correction. They just keep pushing what they read on wiki or their text book.

By the way if you are gonna put me to the test i'm gonna do the same to you.

Are you gonna tell me which theory i need to answer your question with ?

While you are at it answer my question to.

 

[AllieBaba]

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.





It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Hey,there are debates going on on how to define a species but conveniently that is your only so called evidence for speciation. They can't even agree on this.

Im sure berkley puts controversial evidence on its website without a disclaimer....lol

Obviously in the eyes of berkley evolution (including speciation) is fact.

Go ahead and print the quote where they say speciation is a fact.

I already copied and pasted the statement where they said it MIGHT be.

 

[cbirch2]

Could you at least pretend to understand English?

From the Berkeley site:

"Evolutionary biologists would love to know what happens next: will the colonizing iguanas die out, will they survive and change only slightly, or will they become reproductively isolated from other Iguana iguana and become a new species?"

You notice that there is a question. That is not evidence that it has been proven. It's a statement that says they would like to have proof.

Do you get the difference?

Is English your second language? Perhaps you should change your search settings to allow you to read things in your own language?

Lol because they cant tell the future tard. How will they possibly know if it gets pushed to extinct or if it will become geographically isolated, survive, and speciate. You seriously are dumb.