Quick creationists! Come up with something!

[LnGrrrR]

It used to be called Intelligent design but the creationist used it to get Bible put in the text books and ed it up for the rest of us so mouse created AD.

Alternative design? I'm intrigued. Care to give me a quick primer?

[911]

Alternative design? I'm intrigued. Care to give me a quick primer?

AD is exactly what it says. Alternative design It's for people who don't want to believe they evolved from a snail and don't want to use God as the reason.

Your able to talk about facts and not have to be called a bible thumper.
Why can't someone ask questions why the earth doesn't look 4 billion years old w/o being called a creationist?

why can't a person support some part of evolution and not be called an Atheist?

Why should a student in school be taught they came from a fish and not have nay other choice? And why do the text books have to use 4 Billion when talking about the earth and 25 million when talking about dinosaurs?

Why can't the text books in school at least show that evolution has many flaws? why can't carbon dating mistakes be shown to the students?

You know why Alternative design won't be accepted?

because no matter how smart an Achiest is their little brains they cannot accept the fact that there could be an outside force out their that had a hand in how we came about and that sounds to much like God. A person they despise with a passion.

So the bottom-line is AD is the answer to those who don't buy into Evolution and don't have to support the Bible. they are the few Intelligent species left on earth.

[Wild Cobra]

So you have to be an expert in order to debate around here? How else do people find things out if they don't debate or ask questions? If your so smart why not save us 10 pages of bull and show us proof we evolved from space snot.

Don't have to be an expert, but if you don't understand what you are posting, then that person should ask, and not waste everyone's time with bull material and propaganda.

All I see in this topic is Intelligent designer's and Creationist posting links,videos, and proof of their theories, and a bunch of Atheist's finger pointing and slinging insults mixed in with some very cheesy re-fried 1992 smack from Blake.

WTF was that cartoon about that you posted? Then your words:

The s s of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years

Nothing in the sea gives reliable carbon dating. Only plants that take CO2 from the atmosphere, and vegetarian creatures that eat those plants. Carbon 14 ratios in the sea are dependent on too many factors for reliable carbon dating. The calcium carbonate that mollusks take from the sea is already there for countless years.

If you guys spent 1/2 the time you do insulting others and calling them lier's you may be bale to prove we came from snails but I have yet to see it.

There is no proof. It boils down to opinion. It sure doesn't help when people like you keep posting other people's agenda and lies.

someone PM me when some real debaters enter this topic............

Just stay gone if you have no good material.

where is the evidence?


what part is interesting? I have yet to see, wild Coba,ChumpDumper, Cry havoc, sasfasfan or Blake post anything worth reading, Blake and others are happy to just using this topic as some sort of poster pinata so they can maybe try out their witty 1995 style of smack they have been practicing to ready themselves for the up coming spurs season.

I have little to say on the topic except to swat down those projecting lies about the subject matter. I have already offered my opinions, but none of us have any decent proof. What's the point?

All I see is myself and mouse posting fats after facts and getting nothing worth debating on in return , your not here to learn anything you just want a topic with many pages, I won't sit here and be your dog and pony show i have a job, your topic is one sided and your friends are bias, and to be honest it's really a waste of my time............

Mouse has been posting agenda related lies and misdirection. I haven't looked closely at yours. Is it the same?

[LnGrrrR]

Your able to talk about facts and not have to be called a bible thumper.
Why can't someone ask questions why the earth doesn't look 4 billion years old w/o being called a creationist?

Mainly because those are the two prevailing views.

Why should a student in school be taught they came from a fish and not have nay other choice? And why do the text books have to use 4 Billion when talking about the earth and 25 million when talking about dinosaurs?

Because it's the majority scientific consensus. Otherwise, every crackpot could insist that their theory must have equal time as well. Children only have so much time at school; I'm ok with them learning the majority basis.

Why can't the text books in school at least show that evolution has many flaws? why can't carbon dating mistakes be shown to the students?

I'm ok with books pointing out possible flaws.

You know why Alternative design won't be accepted?

Because it's hard to falsify?

because no matter how smart an Achiest is their little brains they cannot accept the fact that there could be an outside force out their that had a hand in how we came about and that sounds to much like God. A person they despise with a passion.

Most older atheists, I find, don't despise God. They just don't believe in him, and may despise some of the beliefs his followers have or attribute to him.

I agree that many atheists tend to be independent.

[LnGrrrR]

To answer the most important question: When does microevolution "stop":

Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer. It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precoded - mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation. If mutations don't even occur, how can many pile up?

And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell. Besides, do defects on preexisting code = more code? How does the fish gain the DNA needed to become an amphibian?

What of this blurb in the following article? http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar...start:int=2&-C=

These are remnants that are no longer used, and the integrity of the genetic text starts to erode. One of my favorite stories concerns the ice fish of Bouvet Island. These creatures live in the cold waters of the Antarctic. They are the only vertebrates without red blood cells to carry oxygen to nourish their tissues. If you look at the genes for hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying proteins in red blood, one of those genes is completely gone and another is a broken remnant, rotting away. From this we understand that the ancestors of these fish had red blood, but these guys have left that red-blooded lifestyle behind.

Would that be an adaptation, I'm assuming?

[z0sa]

Would that be an adaptation, I'm assuming?

Why is it that when a creationist pulls up unique anomalies as a challenge, its cherry picking from biased sources but you bring up one and its some hard, undeniable proof?

Let's just be frank: for all the assumed philogeny in the world, the hard evidence we can OBSERVE clearly dictates macroevolution is sufficiently impossible. Only when one decides to distort the evidence, and dub animals changing (precodedly, so to speak) to meet their environment do we get any REAL evidence concerning evolution.

You've changed the facts to fit your theory.

[LnGrrrR]

Why is it that when a creationist pulls up unique anomalies as a challenge, its cherry picking from biased sources but you bring up one and its some hard, undeniable proof?

I just merely provided one example, and was curious if you would consider that an adaptation or not. I assumed you would, since it is a seeming loss of genetic code, as you stated.

I believe there are also examples of other animals that have adapted to their world over time and are missing genetic info, such as snakes with vestigial legs, eyes that no longer see, etc etc.

Let's just be frank: for all the assumed philogeny in the world, the hard evidence we can OBSERVE clearly dictates macroevolution is sufficiently impossible. Only when one decides to distort the evidence, and dub animals changing (precodedly, so to speak) to meet their environment do we get any REAL evidence concerning evolution.

Given that macroevolution is usually considered to take, at least, thousands of years, I would say it's not very surprising that we haven't seen an example of macro evolution.

What of animals with mutations, where those mutations betray curious genetic structure? For instance, mutant whales being born with legs? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Or did this creator just use the same building blocks for all life, and so there is a small chance that ANY genetic defect/mutant might take on aspects of a creature it normally wouldn't?

Also, I'm curious. What evidence would lead you to change your stance, and believe in macro evolution?

[LnGrrrR]

What of this evidence that shows bacteria evolving a new ability?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

[z0sa]

What of this evidence that shows bacteria evolving a new ability?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

I touched on this earlier - bacteria have far more 'raw materials' to work with in their genomes. Many, if not most, other bacterium may process citrate - the e. coli over tens of thousands of generations of feeding on the same substance activating a similar ability does not sound odd or damaging. Incredible abilities, including incredibly fast adaptation, are simply innate features of microorganisms.

[Shastafarian]

To answer the most important question: When does microevolution "stop":

Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer.

This is gonna be good, I can tell.

It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precoded

So all organisms have these precoded mutations. Only some choose to express it. Is that right?

- mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation. If mutations don't even occur, how can many pile up?

That's just flat out wrong. Mutations do occur and they've been shown to be the root cause of antibiotic resistance.

And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell.

$100 if you can name the enzyme that repairs DNA without looking it up.

Besides, do defects on preexisting code = more code?

Do you know what a codon is?

How does the fish gain the DNA needed to become an amphibian?

I could teach you but "isn't that what I pay taxes for"?

[Shastafarian]

I touched on this earlier - bacteria have far more 'raw materials' to work with in their genomes. Many, if not most, other bacterium may process citrate

Is that why there's a specific test in the lab to determine which organisms process citrate and which don't?

- the e. coli over tens of thousands of generations of feeding on the same substance activating a similar ability does not sound odd or damaging.

I wish this made sense so I could deconstruct it.

Incredible abilities, including incredibly fast adaptation, are simply innate features of microorganisms.

Define adaptation in this sense for us please.

[Shastafarian]

What page in thread has the link to the information? I'd guess that the tree simply grew into the rock.

[z0sa]

I admit its good evidence for your cause. I just think that this is more an isolated ability.

[Alex Jones]

Mainly because those are the two prevailing views.

That is way AD gives you the 3rd option.

Because it's the majority scientific consensus.

So if the majority of girls in school are pregnant then it's ok for your 16 year old to give birth also?

Don't be such a sellout. Besides before Darwin wrote his book this was not even in the schools. Scientist had to suck on their hairy monkey s until their savior Darwin appeared, and you must remember at one time the majority of schools taught students if you bleed someone to death it will help get rid of their headaches, don't be afraid of change.

If your so willing to go with the majority why even make this topic go watch fox news along with the "majority" of the Sheeple in this country.

Otherwise, every crackpot could insist that their theory must have equal time as well.

Kinda like what Darwin wanted? You didn't seem to have a problem bringing him into the schools! And why is new evidence being a "crackpot"?
And how hard is it to add a few pages of Intelligent design to a book? Oh wait your kids are much to busy with other things in school.

Children only have so much time at school; I'm ok with them learning the majority basis.

yep those kids have no time to learn theses days......





I'm ok with books pointing out possible flaws.

Because it's hard to falsify?

you mean like the 100's of fake fossil that come out of China?


or the fake charts still in the text books?

Most older atheists, I find, don't despise God.

Translation: the old farts closer to death that are now worried about their souls.

They just don't believe in him, and may despise some of the beliefs his followers have or attribute to him.

Then what about the assholes in this topic what are their excuses for bashing the creationist?

I agree that many atheists tend to be independent.

Do they have a choice?

[Alex Jones]

What page in thread has the link to the information? I'd guess that the tree simply grew into the rock.

I'm not sure I still want to converse with your mountain dew educed mind, maybe today is a school holiday so your here to ask silly questions but If I do show you the links you so desperately crave since your really into leaning and not just here to pick fights, then you need to start posting some that shows me you and Blake evolved from snails or at least comment on past postings I made. stop trying to avoid answering questions with questions of your own its an old trick.


First off the point of the picture is to show you Trees don't grow thorough rocks that there must have been a huge flood in order to bury all those trees in layers of soil.

Second: the tree and the "rings" show that you can't date the earth by rings in the rocks. You can't have it both ways use the rings in the earth and rocks to say the earth is billions of years old and at the same time say that rings don't prove . get off the fence.

http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

Polystrate fossils are a problem for those who believe rock layers take millions of years to form. Look at the picture at the right for example. If each of these layers of rock formed over millions of years, then why are there trees standing straight up through several different layers?
A tree would have died, fallen over and rotted in just a short time. It is clear that the layers were laid down and hardened in a short period of time

[Shastafarian]

First off the point of the picture is to show you Trees don't grow thorough rocks that there must have been a huge flood in order to bury all those trees in layers of soil.

Alright there was a flood. Floods happen all the time.

Second: the tree and the "rings" show that you can't date the earth by rings in the rocks. You can't have it both ways use the rings in the earth and rocks to say the earth is billions of years old and at the same time say that rings don't prove . get off the fence.

If you think the two processes are the same then I've been conversing with a complete moron.

The Ins ute for Creation Research

Our website is currently being updated.

Please come back soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Do you have an actual link to the discovery or just clipped and edited newspaper articles?

[ElNono]

Polystrate_fossil

[LnGrrrR]

I touched on this earlier - bacteria have far more 'raw materials' to work with in their genomes. Many, if not most, other bacterium may process citrate - the e. coli over tens of thousands of generations of feeding on the same substance activating a similar ability does not sound odd or damaging. Incredible abilities, including incredibly fast adaptation, are simply innate features of microorganisms.

It's your contention though that animals can't create new genetic material or gain new information, yet these bacteria seem to have done so. Am I incorrect?

Or is your theory like quantum physics, where extremely small items can have unusual properties?

[LnGrrrR]

I admit its good evidence for your cause. I just think that this is more an isolated ability.

[LnGrrrR]

Then what about the assholes in this topic what are their excuses for bashing the creationist?

Given that you call them assholes, is it any surprise that they might be negative towards you?

Darwin made predictions that seem to have been borne out by scientific findings (ie, finding animals in certain strata, DNA, etc etc)

If I was around when they bled people using leeches, I probably would have thought that was correct. I doubt I would have had the training to know otherwise.

[101A]

Sucks to be 101A right now...started this thread intending to be the heroic, scientifically literate believer, smacking down athiestic and agnostic strawmen left and right. The those strawmen turned into real live human beings named spursncowboys and mouse.

I didn't start this thread.

[101A]

And it NEVER sucks to be me.

[DMX7]

why is it all trees around the world know exactly when to die? (don't bother to answer you evolutionist just insult never post proof)

Evolutionists don't post proof... this coming from a creationist? LMFAO

Second: don't talk about love, that is an area you know nothing about. your an atheist you came from a snail what do you know from love?
love is an emotion that requires you have a soul or a spirit how can you have one without a creator?

Actually, love doesn't require a soul. It requires biology, i.e., a brain and a penis. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.

[PixelPusher]

And it NEVER sucks to be me.

[911]

Given that you call them assholes, is it any surprise that they might be negative towards you?

someone knocks on your door and calls your wife a ho I think after 6 days your allowed to call them an asshole why don't you start on page one work your way here with a Talley of name calling see what the score is.

once again avoid evolution debate and don't post any proof your fitting right in brah!