Reply With Quote
How come the Atheist on this site cant seem to post without getting upset or cursing?
! Natural Selection is not about the ing creation of the universe. Natural Selection is not a game of dice. your strawman arguments.
How come the Atheist on this site cant seem to post without getting upset or cursing?
Do you have a mother? get ready to be told to her.
Evolution is occuring today. Currently, genetic mutations in humans are occuring at a faster pace than has ever been observed in history.
Mitochondria are only reducibly complex when you use the circular argument of evolution as your basis - that Mitochondria "evolved" (long story short) into being an indispensable part of the cell's processes, since they were supposedly single celled organisms themselves that were assimilated into the cell processes. This is simply an observation because mitchondria are the most distinct part of the cell, with its own mini-nucleus. There's no proof that they were ever separate from the cell.
You bring up DNA, which is evolution's Pandora's Box. There is no answer for the rise and development of DNA's systemic properties nor cataloguing consistencies. Sure you can see where a mutation may have occurred, but where did the original strands of DNA come from? *cue circular argument based IN evolution to prove itThe problem with pointing to bacteria and saying that mutation can't happen, is that we have decoded the DNA and can see exactly where mutations have changed these things.
Evolution is a theory for a reason: it cannot be proven to exist without subjective reasoning, cannot be studied by the scientific method, in actuality is more philosophical in nature than scientific. Science has pushed evolution onto the evidence, not the opposite.Science is finding a hypothesis that best fits the available evidence, and evolutionary theory does just that.
I beg to differ, as intelligent design in its purest form is scientifically sound. The people trying to make adam and eve etc work with science, they're always going to be in the realm of philosophy.Creationism, in all its forms, doesn't.
Geostratographical column, first and foremost - Evolution's Big Madeup Story Since 1859 is the basis of all paleontology.Since you say that evolutionary theory is a big circular argument, that is something new.
Can you outline to me how it is circular?
Transitional forms - none found, yet evolutionists will pin 'transitional form' on anything they can't immediately identify. The ones they get away with because the scientific community turns a blind eye are never in correct geostratographical position.
Carbon Dating is so hit or miss (by hundreds and sometimes thousands of millions of years), they simply select the date which most coincides with the dating object's geostratographical column placement rather than accept carbon dating is too inaccurate to place accurately. There's a well known example of the remains of a cowboy (including clothing and other evidence) being found and carbon dated to being nearly 1.7 billion years old.
There's 15 reasons I read not that long ago and will find again, each with evolutionist cited sources, why the Earth cannot be anywhere near 4.3 billion years old (im not a young earth advocate, but the whole billions of years thing is bull ).
Just a few things.
Your half right. It's "de-evolution", and it is happening today. It is in fact the opposite of evolution, and is the only proven form of true "evolution." People - and things - are getting less and less able to survive in their environment, which is the true nature of Nature.
This is separate from Adaptation, which does not use genetic mutation and is the closest thing you'll get to true evolution of the species.
I can see that somebody hasn't heard of radiometric dating.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
I don't doubt that for one second
I'm still evolving as we speak.
If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?
Links to show Radiometric dating has many flaws.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../i3/canyon.asp
http://creationwiki.org/KBS_Tuff_sho...ometric_dating
http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search
problems with radiometric
http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search
Because you idiots have no idea what evolution means when you paint it as creation.
Sorry Mouse, but those sites don't disprove squat.
If people weren't so blinded by their inherent inhibition for their God or their Science, they'd see God and evolution is actually easily linked AND made purposeful. The two separated are nowhere near what they could do together, but Man will never allow his mind to open that far.
Radiometric shows stalac es to be millions of years old when in fact they were taken out of a London tunnel, disused since its days as an air-raid shelter, 1941-45
you do the math.
Acting like evolution is a a theory of creation is making a massive strawman.
Radiometric and carbon dating are tools used by men to prove how old something is, and how it takes millions of years for something the become petrified, and yet they can't explain how a cowboy boot manufactured around 1950 and found in a creek bed about 1980 near Iraan, Texas, contains a "fossilized" or "petrified" human leg inside, demonstrating that fossils do not take millions of years to form.
I would like TLongII to explain away the limestone cowboy!
Evolution is not about creation of life; it's solely about natural selection taking over once life has appeared.
Snopes it dude.
Without evolution, original life is useless as it cannot evolve.
Who mentioned evolution being a theory of creation? I think the point you're trying to make is that creationism and evolution are incompatible, and that is where you are wrong.
Evolution and Natural Selection are not mutually exclusive, by the way.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-17-2009 at 04:48 PM.
Sure. My Darwin idol is right besides Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
No love for Bohr?
I wonder where all those men will be when your facing judgment day.
Do you really have to wonder why people give you for the ridiculous things you post? So spurster accepting evolution like the rest of the educated world means he'll get punished on judgement day?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions