Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like Gandalf, where else would I be? Your hypothesis above is noted. The fact that what is considered millions of years of geological and biological development is crammed into 1,000 years (1) up to the supposed flood, which we would consider at the end of the prehistoric period. That makes you a Young Earthist and the term will be continued to be applied, bearing in mind that you have an 'old' pre -earth earth which would supposedly account for the old rocks.
(1) that other YE creationists range from 5,000 to 50, 000 years for the Biblical-theory earth does not make then at all different from you, especially as you have to add on what - 6 thousand years at least from then to now.
No, I am old earth.
If the earth, prior to Genesis 1:2 is millions or billions of years old, could it be, (I'm just throwing this out there) that the hominids and almost human looking skeletons being finding today are from that old world? and that scientists today are confusing the hominids of that old world with a correlation to today's humans?
"Given the sheer enormity of the information encoded in DNA, that five percent results in about 150 million DNA base pairs that are different. If we follow the older 98.8% similarity figure, even that 1.2% difference is significant, as this pro-evolutionary website shows: “If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same, why are we so different? Numbers tell part of the story. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't. And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently — they can be ‘turned on’ in different amounts, in different places or at different times.” [↩]"
That site is either irrelevant or rubbish. The arguments about DNA complexity are irrelevant to evolution -theory. Abiogenesis is not the issue.
The incredulity of the owner of the site about speculation re abiogenesis and cosmic origins is as irrelevant to the discussion as abiogenesis or cosmic origins itself.
You have clearly failed to make any kind of case trying to debunk evolution (which to make it laboriously plain yet again ) is not about where life came from, but the mechanism through which it diversified into the present bioforms) and in fact they have rebounded. So you have to revert to really irrelevant unexplained questions as 'Gaps for God' arguments which both you and the monumentally wrongheaded owner of that site try to present as disproving evolution.
You may think that this ploy is somehow scraping you a draw in the debate, but it is in fact doing more to make Creationism look uninformed and blinkered than anything we could post, just so we take care to point that out.
So you just carry right on with it, old china.
P.s just as an add-on.. the numbers of genes needed to effect radical biological changes have turned out to be rather few. It is not how many of them there are, but when and how they kick in to affect the development.
These niggles are at best questions requiring answers- not some kind of 'Evolution is impossible' stumper - which in fact the ONLY argument Creationism has. At worst they are ignorant of the answers that are already there.
You aren't exactly shining in knowledge too, friend.
Quote:
Even if the first statement was valid - the disparity in both num,bers and expertise is enough to put paid to that, the quality of evidence is what counts. Not numbers. Neither you nor any Creationist have been able to put up a case against evolution other than misrepresentation, irrelevant arguments and ignoring unwelcome evidence.
Saying so does not prove so.
Quote:
The case FOR Creation seems not to exist.
Evolution absolutely does not exist.
Quote:
Your other point was mere foaming at the mouth. It is a basic of genetics that,if it doesn't affect the genetic make -up (like an injury, tattoo or flattened forehead from banging it against a Bible) it won't be passed on to the offspring.
It's tough when someone like me points out the inherrent weaknesses in evolution but, eventually you will catch on.
Quote:
Because you,old sprout, in your Faith- based denialism, cannot entertain the theory of evolution does not make it untenable. In fact anyone with their eyes not painted on, apart from you, apparently, can see that your case against evolution has turned out to be untenable and your attempts to knock holes in it has only made it stronger.
I absolutely agree with you that it would be wrong to only use faith to deny evolution. It also takes common sense that no one is ever going to create a cell with all it's myriad inner workings by a stroke of accident. It just doesn't happen in nature and never did and never will. Never, AREQUIPA, NEVER.
That site is either irrelevant or rubbish. The arguments about DNA complexity are irrelevant to evolution -theory. Abiogenesis is not the issue.
The incredulity of the owner of the site about speculation re abiogenesis and cosmic origins is as irrelevant to the discussion as abiogenesis or cosmic origins itself.
You have clearly failed to make any kind of case trying to debunk evolution (which to make it laboriously plain yet again ) is not about where life came from, but the mechanism through which it diversified into the present bioforms) and in fact they have rebounded. So you have to revert to really irrelevant unexplained questions as 'Gaps for God' arguments which both you and the monumentally wrongheaded owner of that site try to present as disproving evolution.
You may think that this ploy is somehow scraping you a draw in the debate, but it is in fact doing more to make Creationism look uninformed and blinkered than anything we could post, just so we take care to point that out.
So you just carry right on with it, old china.
If it wasn't relevant I wouldn't have quoted it.
I didn't know the guy who posted it was a creationist. Why don't you show us he is.
Not just because it is incompatible with my faith.
Why don't we just say it this way:
Some scientists say evolution is wrong.
Some scientists say evolution is correct.
Therefore, since both sides cancel each other out . . . .
Why don't you and your family stop using your mouth for eating and try smashing sandwiches into your forehead and see if that causes a change so you grow a mouth in your forehead or at least your children or grand children or great grand children will grow a mouth where their forehead is. It would be a good experiment. Of course you all would die trying.
My God you're ignorant. You seriously have no idea whatsoever how evolution works; not even the very, very basics.
You aren't exactly shining in knowledge too, friend.
Saying so does not prove so.
Evolution absolutely does not exist.
It's tough when someone like me points out the inherrent weaknesses in evolution but, eventually you will catch on.
I absolutely agree with you that it would be wrong to only use faith to deny evolution. It also takes common sense that no one is ever going to create a cell with all it's myriad inner workings by a stroke of accident. It just doesn't happen in nature and never did and never will. Never, AREQUIPA, NEVER.
I get it.
Judging by this Eusebius guy's tone here, there are some psychological issues driving his flagrant statements and ignorance. He's apparently garnering negative attention and what I've heard referred to as "narcissistic supply" by behaving defiantly. So this isn't about the science, and science isn't going to dismantle his closed-mindedness. This is an individual whose life-skills were hijacked at some point - whose tactic for gaining personal validation is to collect a sort of anti-validation. Nothing that is said to him in this, or any other, topic will remotely challenge his religious insolence, because his religious insolence itself is a sort of defense - a subconscious departure from reality for which he simultaneously gains wide recognition and gets to imagine himself a sort of superhero. If this man were to admit that he actually knows nothing about evolutionary biology, his entire mode of gaining validation, and indeed his identity itself, would come crashing down.
This is a guy who's struck gold by denying Darwinian evolution on an internet discussion forum for religion. The more evolution is explained to him, the more his ailing ego is fed. The only effective strategy against a man like this is to completely ignore him, which won't happen, because he will continue to antagonize until he gets a response.
It is in a way. It is forcing your body to adapt to changes just like an environmental change would.
Even though we don't agree, I actually like you. Just so you know.
Why thank you .... we don't have to agree to like each other (even though I think you really are out in left field with evolution )
Now, the sandwich thing - that would be an extreme change. Evolution doesn't account for extreme changes because it cannot adapt quickly enough.
Hence why 99% of all the species that ever existed are currently extinct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) is not about where life came from, but the mechanism through which it diversified into the present bioforms) and in fact they have rebounded. So you have to revert to really irrelevant unexplained questions as 'Gaps for God' arguments which both you and the monumentally wrongheaded owner of that site try to present as disproving evolution.
