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.
That is not evolution. There is not one shred of evidence to support the untenable position that humans evolved from a species which gave us the ape and human. The huge library of coding in our DNA is human specific. It is designed to build only humans. Likewise the huge library of coding in ape DNA is ape specific. It is designed to build only apes. There is no creature which had a huge library of coding in its DNA to build both ape and human. It is literally impossible. Impossible.
We need proper evidence to support such objections - not just bang on the table assertions. DNA is not as specific as you claim (from all I understand) it is rather adapted by mutations to produce a particular thing. You are making flat assertions without and basis.
We need proper evidence to support such objections - not just bang on the table assertions. DNA is not as specific as you claim (from all I understand) it is rather adapted by mutations to produce a particular thing. You are making flat assertions without and basis.
You are correct he does not know what he is talking about.
In fact 8% of our DNA is foreign...meaning it came from a non-human source.
Wrong. My "Do All" ideology crushes both Religion and Atheism. I sheer ALL the sheep! Then have lamb chops for dinner, dressed in my wool blazer!
Religion and Atheism cannot hang with Pantheism. It brings the power of EVVVVVV-RYYYYYYY-THINGGGGGGG to bear. It necessarily wins...every time!
Have a nice day. I for one couldn't care less what you think. It is quite irrelevant to the Evolution/Creationism debate or to the wider agenda of reconsidering the whole subservience to religious authorities.
Crafty putting words into my mouth - I never mentioned lies - you did. I showed that the gospels have him saying things that are not true - either because he didn't know or because his audience wouldn't understand. You dishonest methods are palpable.
Okay, I'll play your little game. Where in the gospels do they have Him saying things that are not true?
Quote:
Dinosaurs are not lizards or even reptiles. And archaeopteryx didn't have feathers? You denial and wilful igniorance as staggering.
That's good we are all falling about laghing at you and all the creationist crowd.
What the heck is laghing?
Quote:
Because Eusebius says so.
You are finally catching on. If the evolutionists can do it, turn about is fair play.
Quote:
A boring mix of denial of the evidence that has been presented and boneheaded responses to different posters. If this is the best you have I suggest you admit that you have nothing.
In other words, you are out of your league.
Quote:
We are getting near the end of any meaningful exchange.
Originally Posted by Eusebius That is not evolution. There is not one shred of evidence to support the untenable position that humans evolved from a species which gave us the ape and human. The huge library of coding in our DNA is human specific. It is designed to build only humans. Likewise the huge library of coding in ape DNA is ape specific. It is designed to build only apes. There is no creature which had a huge library of coding in its DNA to build both ape and human. It is literally impossible. Impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
We need proper evidence to support such objections - not just bang on the table assertions. DNA is not as specific as you claim (from all I understand) it is rather adapted by mutations to produce a particular thing. You are making flat assertions without and basis.
If you really knew anything about the coding you wouldn't be asking me for evidence. You'd be agreeing with me.
You are finally catching on. If the evolutionists can do it, turn about is fair play.
In other words, you are out of your league.
Really? So sad. LOL
This collation of cheap shots and nose -thumbing merits no answer.
Especially that link to the Creation site which is trying to explain away archeopteryx with ignorance. Dinosaurs had teeth - some reptiles don't - dinosaurs are not reptiles, they were warm -blooded. And now they can't deny the feathers as they did they are trying to argue that it isn't transitional from a dino, when in much of its morphology, it is.
This isn't scientific objections is is faith -based and rather ignorant denial. And they change their position quite a lot. At one time they said Archaeopteryx was a fake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
If you really knew anything about the coding you wouldn't be asking me for evidence. You'd be agreeing with me.
I'd ask Matadora. You'd be the last person I'd ask. Not only do you know nothing about it - you don't even want to know, in case it upsets you personal opinions.
Yes...I looked up Feducci about the dino filaments.
Alan Feduccia who opposes the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs and instead argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs (a taxon that includes dinosaurs) is often quoted by evolution deniers. Feduccia is a qualified scientist and should not be just dismissed, but his views are in an extreme minority within the scientific community. It is simply bad reasoning for the evolution deniers to use Feduccia's writing disagreeing with conventional ideas of bird evolution while ignoring the many experts that disagree with him.
(Talk origins).
He could be right, but he could be wrong, to. He is rather dismissing a feature that he does not want to be true. And the fact is that he is in a serious minority as the evidence that the feathered dinosaurs are a transitional form (or forms) dinosaurs to birds is compelling.
I had a look at Truth in science (which you have to check to find out that it is a Christian site ) and they did mention this disagreement by Feduccia and they also tried to make a case about dino -feather assymetry. That of course is the point - if only they saw it. Feathers evolved gradually from their original purpose (display -as some of the fossil indicate) and in some smaller dinos evolved into a feathers adapted to flight.
Proof of evolution and disproof of design. All but proven, old son.
P.s well...that was fun. What shall we do now?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-30-2015 at 03:40 PM..
Have a nice day. I for one couldn't care less what you think. It is quite irrelevant to the Evolution/Creationism debate or to the wider agenda of reconsidering the whole subservience to religious authorities.
Oh, yes, the topic. And I have a lot to say about the topic.
How can you otherwise intelligent people (many with advanced degrees and extensive direct expertise)...get roped into wasting even a minute of your precious lives debating Instapoof or Young Earth Creationism? You have to know that anybody putting that out is either running some Poe game on you, or certainly too far gone to even try to have a reasonable exchange with.
Actually, I never want you to stop...it cracks me up. The best is the real scientists, taking their time to post up some highly technical explanation to some Bible infused individual, that always just comes back with snark or some stuff that relies on hocus-pocus. It took me a while to discover that it is typically that Atheism Religion that compels them to do it. It has to be...I couldn't see any other reason why. Only the Religious are that committed to talking about dumbstuff.
When I see the latest Evolution vs Creation threads...I think back to a member that went by "evofreaks"...his posts are legendary. You all must look them up and read them. They should make a book of some of those threads. They were really piling on him one day, hitting him from every angle, and he spoke of, "What an abomination that these self-professed apes, would criticize his God, his Bible, and him!!!". Oh man!!...it's hilarious.
Yes, and that's what I have to say, and have always said, about this absurd topic.
Yes creationism is a very absurd topic. Their beliefs are the most absurd I have ever come across.
That's what makes some of it so hilarious...because it always gets to how indignant they are that their belief in the Book and the stories would be questioned.
So then it gets to something similar to trying to hold our families big Maine Coon cat on your lap if a chipmunk came by.
Then there is the Fanatical Religious that simply cannot be debated on any of that magical stuff. Good thing we are here...cuz there are many places in this world, if you mocked their Book or stories about a prophet or Deity...they would decapitate you or set you on fire, if they got their hands on you.
In summation: You will, minimally, get nowhere and accomplish nothing but to waste precious minutes of your life..and, at worst, if you are in the wrong place, get yourself killed...trying to even discuss it with them. Just the Reality of this world.
Then there is the Fanatical Religious that simply cannot be debated on any of that magical stuff. Good thing we are here...cuz there are many places in this world, if you mocked their Book or stories about a prophet or Deity...they would decapitate you or set you on fire, if they got their hands on you.
In summation: You will, minimally, get nowhere and accomplish nothing but to waste precious minutes of your life..and, at worst, if you are in the wrong place, get yourself killed...trying to even discuss it with them. Just the Reality of this world.
No, I think it is the reality you desire, but not what actually is. If we examine the world we actually live in, there is a very clear link between the relative powerlessness of our religious fanatics, the lack of entanglement between religion and government, the tremendously wide range of religious beliefs, and the relative safety and freedom we enjoy and a history of bold men and women dissenting from the orthodoxy of the day, sometimes sacrificing their wealth, freedom, and lives to do so. Men like Martin Luther, John Tyndale, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, David Hume, Tom Paine, and Thomas Jefferson all bucked the orthodoxy of their days, and by risking life, liberty, and fortune they among others have shaped a culture in which we can believe different things, or not believe at all.
It appears we have very clear evidence from history that people standing up for their principles, for rational discourse, and for a more humanistic approach within society can have a tremendous effect. Why then, having achieved as you pointed out, a much more tolerant, open, and free society, should we abandon the principles that got us here?
You would have us despair that religion is so vast and overwhelming that we ought to abandon our reason and principles and embrace what you freely admit is magical thinking and foolish fantasies out of fear. I rather think that history has shown that reason, secular governance, and a humanist society can influence religions that once slaughtered their way through Europe and the Americas to become influences for peace, tolerance, and religious freedom. It seems to we that we should keep doing what we are doing, even if there are people who wish to blow up buildings, shoot up clinics, or twist government into the service of religious persecution, in fact precisely because these things happen.
-NoCapo
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.
I for one couldn't care less what you think. It is quite irrelevant to the Evolution/Creationism debate or to the wider agenda of reconsidering the whole subservience to religious authorities.
You'd be the last person I'd ask. Not only do you know nothing about it - you don't even want to know, in case it upsets you personal opinions.
) and they did mention this disagreement by Feduccia and they also tried to make a case about dino -feather assymetry. That of course is the point - if only they saw it. Feathers evolved gradually from their original purpose (display -as some of the fossil indicate) and in some smaller dinos evolved into a feathers adapted to flight. 
