Evolution vs. Creation

Silly Earthlings

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>Again, I don't think anyone said that. You may have misinterpreted again.

So, I see that you really don't care to learn. What do you believe and why?

Page- 1898

"Gillette"
"Not really the first. Imagine a pot of popcorn. There is no one kernel of corn that gives rise to all the finished pot of popcorn. There are hundreds of kernels, and when conditions are right (heat, oil, etc.) they ALL begin to pop. Same thing (probably) for the abiogenesis if early life on earth."

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>when did that happen?

Page 1898

"Gillette"
"Not really the first. Imagine a pot of popcorn. There is no one kernel of corn that gives rise to all the finished pot of popcorn. There are hundreds of kernels, and when conditions are right (heat, oil, etc.) they ALL begin to pop. Same thing (probably) for the abiogenesis if early life on earth."

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>If you're still clinging onto the ERV paradigm, you're living in the dark ages... unless you think a virus infected a host and thereby enabled it to reproduce.

Skippy the bush kangaroo doesn't HAVE that ERV.

I keep telling you, he doesn't care. Neither do we.

Stop claiming we're making claims that we're not.

Nice job at avoiding addressing the subject again by the way. You're even better at dodging than Cowboy, and that's saying something.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Except I've not relied on atheism. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it atheism. I only point to your religion, which you have now since revealed, to point to the hypocrisy of you claiming reality isn't real because Godmagic.
In short you're nothing but anti-science to the core, and a liar to boot. And EVERY time you are asked to put forward any of your "scientific knowledge", you do everything possible in order to avoid it.

I've repeatedly challenged you to engage in scientific debate without bringing up religion. You can't do it. If evolution is such an obvious scientific fact, why are you incapable or defending its precepts without reference to religion?

BeGot wrote:

<quoted text>
I did post proof. Go back and read it.
All you posted was that he claimed to be a Christian. Go ahead and believe him. France did and Poland.
After all Hitler Lying is quite a stretch.

Again, you posted some garbage from theistic groups. It did not prove anything with the exception of the bias of the writers. Actual historians, most of whom are in all probability Christian have shown that he was a Catholic. He claimed he was a Catholic, he got along fine with the Catholic church. The pope of that time was heavily criticized for his failure to rebuke Hitler.

You can claim that Hitler was not YOUR type of Christian, but he was a Christian nonetheless.

It really bugs these creatards who try to use Hitler as a weapon against evolution that Hitler was a Christian creationist all along.

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>Not at all, conditions on the present day earth are VASTLY different than those initial conditions.

But conditions are ripe for life right now.
Just look around.
The oil in your pop corn popper is hot and ready but no life is popping up from non living matter today.

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
It;s got nothing to do with reproducing. That's you dishonestly moving the goalposts, Jesus freak LIAR.
It has everything to do with many retroviral insertion markers in EXACTLY the same place in the genome of all humans and also many members of the ape family, when those markers are NOT present in the genomes of OTHER mammals.
Got an explanation for that yet? Aside from lug nuts? LOL
Common descent is the only rational explanation.

Please explain why common descent is the only rational explanation in view of the functionality of ERVs. Tell me how thousands of sequences of inserted nucleotide coincidentally provide important functions to the parasitized host.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>So if you picked up a rock in a field and radiometrically dated it, it would be the same age as you? Ae you telling me that all rocks that are sitting on the ground are "new"?

It depends. What are you dating? Are you dating the rock or the surface material? The rock itself will of course be older. The surface material may be a recent deposit and therefore is "new".

By the way, only a fool would apply radiometric dating to an arrowhead at all. At best you would get the age of the rock that the arrowhead was made of, if it was obsidian that is. If it were a flint arrowhead it probably would not have enough radioactive material to date in the first place. Flint is almost pure SiO2, which is not radioactive. Obsidian should have a fair amount of potassium in it and potassium is radioactive.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>You just exposed the fallacy of your thinking. Your model would require an end target, ie, intelligent design. Why would natural selection favor a meaningless "Ham" or "to be or"? Show me the proof that natural selection has any such power as you imagine.

Your problem is you're still relying on your English language analogy. Life is not a language. I'd look up some examples for you but you're not interested.(shrug)

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>So if you picked up a rock in a field and radiometrically dated it, it would be the same age as you? Ae you telling me that all rocks that are sitting on the ground are "new"?

Swing and a right cross! That straw-man's going down!!!

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>BeGot, what's your point?s
That we should all hop on the bandwagon?

That post was (if you had read the quote part) A list of facts countering a claim made ( in the Quote part )

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
She's no coward. She's puttting the screws to you and you come up short. She feels rather strongly that you have no faith and God doesn't love you and I agree.
Just kidding. God loves everyone, even losers like you.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I was female?!?! LOL!

No christian has faith, but they sure do like to pretend that they do.

Jesus said, "If it glorifies the father and you ask in my name, I will do it!" Putting an arm back would certainly bring glory to someone!

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Stalin was an ardent evolutionist and atheist. He loved Charles Darwin. That is an historical fact. The logical conclusion if Darwinism is just as Professor Provine stated...
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
*(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998).

Again wrong. He was a supporter of Lysenko. And Lysenkoism was not Darwinian evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

Lysenko disagreed with geneticists of his time. He was wrong and definitely harmed Soviet agriculture.

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>
I Never Once Said I Could Prove It......Especially To Indoctrinated, Bias, Folks, Like Yourself.
Your Just Mad Because You Werent Invited....There Was A Reason....Smell Your Armpits Lately ?

LOL>.YOu sound like a mean hearted nasty christian....Cutting people down calling the names attacking there beliefs....

Thing is I dont have beliefs I have FACT..........

So you dont thingk evolution or big bang is real....WHAT DO YOU THINK IS REAL AND WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE? Because I have BOAT LOADS of prrof for evolution.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Genetic code is not just nucleotides,, but has language type functionality.

No it doesn't. The fact every organism on the planet is born with mutations demonstrates that you are wrong. It does not function as a language, it does not have grammar, it's chemistry. The "code" was invented by humans, as an analogy to help us describe DNA (unfortunately for fundies they take it too literally).

HTS wrote:

Your proverbial monkey would fail even with a hypothetical filter unless that filter had an end goal.

The only "end goal" is survival.

But if something doesn't survive, evolution is okay with that too.

HTS wrote:

By the same token, DNA cannot be changed one nucleotide at a time. You imagine that natural selection can work on the level of individual. Ucleotides, when it can't.

DNA can be changed one base or numerous bases at a time.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
Bethany doesn't want her arm back.

There a lot of toughness in that girl! After seeing Jaws, I didn't want to go back in the water!

I had heard that she did not want a prosthetic arm, but if she could have her real arm back, I think she would take it!

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>All true believers know the way of the flesh is death. Hell, I pray all the time my dick would turn black and fall off but the Holy Spirit says God has no plans to give me any shortcuts to heaven. I did pray a Rosary for world peace, as promised, and that Nettiebelle and all the folks who rely on her for strength would be showered with blessings and for Simon the Seminarian.

How did that work out for ya?

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I see you've been nailed to the wall..

Stop talking to the jello on the wall and deal with Gillette instead.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I've repeatedly challenged you to engage in scientific debate without bringing up religion. You can't do it. If evolution is such an obvious scientific fact, why are you incapable or defending its precepts without reference to religion?

Intelligent Design = Creationism = Religious Dogma = Creaotardism. When you start talking science and not creaotardism, we can debate.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Genetic code is not just nucleotides,, but has language type functionality.

No, it doesn't. "DNA is sort of like a language " partially works AS AN ANALOGY, but DNA does not communicate a language. The chemistry is itself the information. It doesn't communicate information form one knower to another.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Your proverbial monkey would fail even with a hypothetical filter unless that filter had an end goal.

In the ANALOGY about typing Shakespeare, yes. In real life, no.

Natural selection has no end goal. If a bunch of seeds of different sizes are washed onto an area of earth covered with tiny holes, many of the tiny seeds will fall into holes and sprout, thus continuing on the life of their plant species.

The seeds too large will stay on the surface, dry out and die. Natural selection. No intention, purpose or end goal in sight.

Whatever works works.