- Thread starter
- #141
Oh gee. A quick burial in mud.Like: animal casts, amber, tar pits, peat bogs, volcanic ash....There are other ways to create fossils besides floods.
What a retard!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh gee. A quick burial in mud.Like: animal casts, amber, tar pits, peat bogs, volcanic ash....There are other ways to create fossils besides floods.
Oops, wrong again. Better check the scoreboard, Cletus. You would fail a 6th grade science quiz, and the global scientific community agrees with me. I "got my way" long ago.You’re a 3 year old screaming on the floor because you’re clueless and not getting your way.
Says Shitforbrains who just supported what I said about fossil creation.Oops, wrong again. Better check the scoreboard, Cletus. You would fail a 6th grade science quiz, and the global scientific community agrees with me. I "got my way" long ago.You’re a 3 year old screaming on the floor because you’re clueless and not getting your way.
Which describes nearly none of the things i mentioned. Do you even know what a cast is? Stop being such a rabid moron, you might learn something, here.Oh gee. A quick burial in mud.
You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years and thinking there’s such a thing as a new gene.Which describes nearly none of the things i mentioned. Do you even know what a cast is? Stop being such a rabid moron, you might learn something, here.Oh gee. A quick burial in mud.
Oops, wrong again. Damn dude. How embarrassing.You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years
Hilarious! They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!Oops, wrong again. Damn dude. How embarrassing.You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years
Coelacanths are not living fossils. Like the rest of us, they evolve
blogs.scientificamerican.com
They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!
Oops, 100% wrong again. We do have evidence. Lots of it. In fact, some was clearly stated in the article i spoonfed to you.Hilarious! They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!Oops, wrong again. Damn dude. How embarrassing.You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years
Coelacanths are not living fossils. Like the rest of us, they evolve
blogs.scientificamerican.com
View attachment 493184
Yeah, that’s why you can’t link to any, and when you do give a link it validates my point.They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!Oops, 100% wrong again. We do have evidence. Lots of it. In fact, some was clearly stated in the article i spoonfed to you.Hilarious! They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!Oops, wrong again. Damn dude. How embarrassing.You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years
Coelacanths are not living fossils. Like the rest of us, they evolve
blogs.scientificamerican.com
View attachment 493184
Damn son. You are on some kind of streak.
Except for when i just did. Poor little guy.Yeah, that’s why you can’t link to any
Yeah. That must be it.I feel that man didn't want the dragons trampling his vegetable gardens, and so they were quickly eradicated.How much different was the climate a mere 4,000 or so years ago after the “the flood” to force extinction of dinosaurs?
Is this your worldview of earth history?
View attachment 492612
Yes. Stephen Meyer, the charlatan. He's a hack, a non-scientist and a flunkie for the most notoriously anti-science ID'iot creationer organizations in the U.S.Quote:
Evolution.
You learned about it in high school.
It goes like this: Life started out with very simple forms and then gradually, over hundreds of millions of years, morphed into all the forms we see today. Bacteria to Beethoven. Not a straight line, of course…but that’s roughly how it went.
This was the theory proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859, and, with some modification, it has been embraced as unassailable by the science community over the last century. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says, “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid or insane.”
But is that right? Are there no scientific reasons to doubt the evolutionary account of life’s origins?
In November 2016, I attended a conference in London convened by some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. The purpose: to address growing doubts about the modern version of Darwin’s theory.
Let’s look at just two scientific reasons to doubt this theory.
First, the Cambrian Explosion. A weird and wonderful thing happened 530 million years ago: A whole bunch of major groups of animals—what scientists call the “phyla”—appeared abruptly within a geologically short window of time—about ten million years.
These novel animal forms—exhibiting proto-types of most animal body designs we see today—emerged in the fossil record without evidence of earlier ancestors.
Did you catch that? A huge number of diverse animals appeared, with no discernible antecedents.
So where did they come from?
This question really bothered Darwin. And he acknowledged that he could give it “no satisfactory answer.” Nor can scientists today.
The renowned biologist Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, describes the abrupt appearance of the Cambrian animals and other organisms such as dinosaurs, birds, flowering plants and mammals as a pattern of “biological Big Bangs.”
So what caused all these new forms of life to arise? That question leads to a second big doubt: the DNA enigma.
In the 1950s, James Watson and Francis Crick made a startling discovery: The DNA molecule stores information as a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals inside the DNA helix store the instructions—the information—for building the crucial proteins that cells need to survive. Unless the chemical “letters” in the DNA text are sequenced properly, a protein molecule will not form. No proteins; no cells. No cells; no living organisms.
Bill Gates has said, “DNA is like a software program.” Let’s think about that for a second. For computers to run faster and perform more functions, they require new code. Well, the same is true for life: To build new forms of life, the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information—new code.
But this raises questions about the creative power of natural selection and mutation. Natural selection is a simple sorting process. Species keep favorable mutations that allow them to survive but eliminate bad mutations that cause their members to die out. No one doubts that natural selection is a real process and that it produces minor variations, but many biologists now doubt that it produces major innovations in biological form.
To see why, think again about software. What happens if you introduce a few random changes into computer code? You’ll likely mess it up, right? Though it might still work—if you don’t make too many changes. But if you make enough random changes, your program will stop functioning altogether. You certainly can’t keep doing this and expect some cool, new program to pop out. There’s a mathematical reason for this. In all codes and languages, there are vastly more ways of arranging characters that will generate gibberish than there are arrangements that will generate meaningful sequences.
And this applies to DNA.
Remember, natural selection only “selects” sequences that random mutations generate. Yet experiments have established that DNA sequences capable of making stable proteins are extremely rare—and, thus, really hard to stumble on randomly.
How rare? While working at Cambridge University, molecular biologist Douglas Axe showed that, for every DNA sequence that generates a relatively short functional protein, there are 10 to the 77th power nonfunctional sequences.
Now consider that there are only 10 to the 65th power atoms in our galaxy. So finding a new DNA sequence capable of building a functional protein is like searching blindfolded for a single marked atom among a trillion Milky Way galaxies. Talk about a needle in a haystack!
As I show in my book Darwin’s Doubt, even 4 billion years of life’s history is not enough time to overcome a search problem this big.
So, two serious doubts about modern Darwinian theory: The Cambrian Explosion—the sudden appearance of new animals, which evolutionary theory has failed to explain; and the DNA enigma—the implausibility of random mutations producing the information needed to build new forms of animal life.
Scientists who know about these problems are not “ignorant, stupid, or insane;” they are just appropriately skeptical.
I’m Stephen Meyer, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, for Prager University.
Like a massive (global) flood 4,000 years ago?You obviously don’t know that it takes an instantaneous burial in mud to create a fossil. Like what a massive flood does.If you dig deep enough you find rock layers with no dinos. Where did they come from?Where do you get this stuff? Dinos existed then became extinct because they couldn’t adapt to the post flood climate.No it doesn't, it just shows how effective evolution is in creating species adapted to their environment.In your dreams.I'd say it disproves the story of Genesis as being historical.So that disproves the existence of a creator?please explain why over 90% of species that have lived on this planet are now extinct
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.
So how does the fact that there were no dinos, then there were, and now they're gone square with Genesis?
Sure. Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree.Hollie, do you have a theory on how everything came into existence? Do you acknowledge the possibility that a "higher" being created the universe and everything within it?
I think you're uncomfortable with the term ''supernatural'', but a claimed ''all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within ii" identifies something un-natural or supernatural.Hollie, is it possible that, what you call "supernatural" or "gods" is simply an all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within it? My impression of atheists is that they seem incapable, or unwilling, to think "outside the box". To them, the idea that there is such a being out there is simply too fantastic an idea for them to entertain.
Do you play video games? Computer programmers create virtual "worlds". So why is it too fantastic an idea to believe that we were created in a similar manner? Albeit, the difference between us and characters in a video game is that we have independent thought whereas video game characters do not.
I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence.
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Hollie, is it possible that, what you call "supernatural" or "gods" is simply an all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within it? My impression of atheists is that they seem incapable, or unwilling, to think "outside the box". To them, the idea that there is such a being out there is simply too fantastic an idea for them to entertain.
Do you play video games? Computer programmers create virtual "worlds". So why is it too fantastic an idea to believe that we were created in a similar manner? Albeit, the difference between us and characters in a video game is that we have independent thought whereas video game characters do not.
I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence.
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Yea, I created that thread.Hollie, is it possible that, what you call "supernatural" or "gods" is simply an all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within it? My impression of atheists is that they seem incapable, or unwilling, to think "outside the box". To them, the idea that there is such a being out there is simply too fantastic an idea for them to entertain.
Do you play video games? Computer programmers create virtual "worlds". So why is it too fantastic an idea to believe that we were created in a similar manner? Albeit, the difference between us and characters in a video game is that we have independent thought whereas video game characters do not.
I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence.
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
"I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence."
Interesting comment.
There is a thread in the Religion and Ethics forum entitled "Atheists view Christians with contempt and derision''.
So really, who is it that is ''under dark, demonic, influence."?
I believe science is on the side of creation. By the way, ask a committed leftist how many genders there are and then tell me how the left follows science.The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science