Mutation doesn't exist, because its not in the Bible.

The Right

stupid bacteria...they just don't know that "evolution" is an Atheist Lie now do they? If we could just get them to read the bible they would stop that!

Science is the Devil!

Sincerely

Mama "nanc" Boucher

"Science is the Devil!"

That just reminded me of The Waterboy.

I don't want mah baby playin' no foos-ball!

"mama, I don't care what you say, everyone is the debil, football is not the debil, football is fun, and I'm gonna play cause I like it... and and.. vickey valencourt isn't the debil either, and she showed me her boobies... and I liked them too."

Either way, this is very interesting science.

Just because bacteria changes and adapts it does not mean it is going to turn into a human being someday.

Evolution is not simply descriptive of the Theory of Macro evolution.

Evoultion means something different in itself. There is an objective definition of evolution and a subjective definition of evolution.

Some poeple fail to distinguish the two and like to have fun continuing to believe their biases.

Also north, the Bible does speak of mutation. Mutation of moral and intellectual nature.

Just because bacteria changes and adapts it does not mean it is going to turn into a human being someday.

#7 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-22 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Does Not Understand Evolultion

Wrong Ness.

Read the post in context my friend. I am making the case that all those who were saying that this is not kosher with the Bible crowd were making a false case. The argument being countered was that any mention of the word evolution is a no no someone who professes to follow Christ.

I was clarifying that evolution is not defined by the Theory, the theory is described by the word, not defining of the word.

You did not read the article, or jumped to conclusion on your assumption.

Just because bacteria changes and adapts it does not mean it is going to turn into a human being someday

I'd be very, very suprised if it did, too. However, its descendants many millions of years in the future have a very good chance of being complex multicellular organisms with skeletons, brains, blood and muscle tissue.

Just because bacteria changes and adapts it does not mean it is going to turn into a human being someday.

#7 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-22 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sure it does. How do You explain Roseanne Barr

Evolution is not simply descriptive of the Theory of Macro evolution.

This is a ridiculous statement. There is no logical boundary between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". It's the same process viewed on different time scales.

I was clarifying that evolution is not defined by the Theory, the theory is described by the word, not defining of the word.

Yeah. That's all sorts of clear.

Not.

"Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin's works put together. This year's volume might start with a proposed rearrangement of the microbes at the base of the tree of life and end with the discovery of 190-million-year-old dinosaur embryos."

"Deal with it...."

Eaten and excreted decades ago. What else you got?

"It's the same process viewed on different time scales...."

So, we could create a manatee out of a cow out of simple selective breeding?

I'd like to see that. How many generations of arranged matings before I get to pay for my ticket?

What else do you need? A couple millenia of observation isn't enough for you?

If there's no logical boundary between macro and micro evolution, then it should be possible to selectively breed a manatee from a cow. Am I missing something?

What else you got?

The realization that you'd prefer to live a life of blissful self-delusion instead of acknowledging reality...

"Am I missing something?"

A brain for starters.

So, we could create a manatee out of a cow out of simple selective breeding?

I believe you could if you had the time.

We got chihuahuas out of wolves in < 5,000 years. In fact we got every domestic dog breed from wolves in < 5,000 years.

Prior to agriculture, strawberries were the size of pencil erasers. Corn on the cob were dinky little things a couple of inches long and pencil thin. Todays sheep, goats, and cattle would be unrecognizable to anything that lived in the neolithic. In fact, sheep would die of heat prostration without man since they don't naturally shed their wool anymore.

Selective breeding is no big deal

Am I missing something?

Cows and manatees aren't related. However, if you play around enough you could perhaps mate a cow with a gazelle, which could have some fun results.

"Cows and manatees aren't related...."

Not what I heard. How about wolves into dophins?

If there's no logical boundary between macro and micro evolution, then it should be possible to selectively breed a manatee from a cow. Am I missing something?

Of course you're missing something... the part where I say this, "It's the same process viewed on different time scales."

Are you seriously that fucking stupid?

Whups---"dolphins", as opposed to "Dauphins".

Cows, manatees, dolphins, wolves, and mushrooms are all related by common ancestry.

Zed is apparently not familiar with the concept of a family tree, otherwise he would understand how extant animals could share common ancestry and common hereditary information.

"Are you seriously that fucking stupid....?"

Before I respond to that question: How many generations of selective breeding before you get a dolphin from a wolf?

Maybe they aren't related either, even distantly. Tell you what---How many generations before you breed a T. Rex from an ostrich? The sky's the limit here, so have a go.

How about wolves into dophins?

Dolphins are believed to have evolved from even-toed ungulates.

You know, like cows.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll have much success in getting Bessie to hunt for fish.

"Extant animals could share common ancestry and common hereditary information..."

Exactly my point. So, given common hereditary information, how many generations of selective breeding between an Orag and a Gibbon (not Charles)?

Whups---"Orang"---That is to say, and Orang Orang, Orangutang, or Orang-u-tan. Let's say you get a grant to make a Gibbon out of one through selective breeding? How many years?

Let's cut to the chase. Is it even possible?

Come on, ZOMBIE---Hitting that brick wall won't hurt too much.

5,238 generations.

Now what?

Let's say you get a grant to make a Gibbon out of one through selective breeding? How many years?

What difference does it make? What is your point?

Let's cut to the chase. Is it even possible?

What does the possibility of your asinine question have to do with the validity of evolutionary biology? Just because you choose to be obtuse doesn't mean the theory is flawed in the way you mistakenly think it is.

Now we wait for ZOMBIE. It usually takes a while for him to catch up. Interesting, given this is his area of expertise.

Maybe he has something better to do than re-hash this same tired argument yet again. I don't blame him. All you ever do is repeat the same question without really considering the responses you're getting.

"What's your point...?"

That there is no logical difference between micro and macro evolution. The objection I raised to this statement was the most obvious one.

How many generations of selective breeding before you get a dolphin from a wolf?

This is a ridiculous question. The theory of evolution involves the accumulation of genetic changes over enormous amounts of time, not the transmutation of living animals into one another.

Given enough time and the ability to precisely control the selective environment, you could breed a wolf-like characteristics from a dolphin or vice versa. How many generations? Who knows...a lot. It's not exactly feasible, but that was not the reason you asked the question.

"Without really considering the response you are getting...."

I haven't had a response. Just ex catherdra statements. The sort others find annoying when thrown their direction.

What difference does it make? What is your point?

It's Zed. There's no reason to assume he has a point.

Thanks, ZOMBIE---I appreciate you taking a stance.

Let's cut to the chase. Is it even possible?

Possible, yes. Practical, no.

"Not the transmutation of living animals into one another..."

That's not evolution, transmutation of living animals?

zed -- where did god come from?

"Where did God come from...?"

Selective breeding?

So now that you have my answer, why don't you cut to your groundbreaking, revolutionary refutation of the theory of evolution?.

Selective breeding?

Of what? Other gods?

OK -- where did the other gods oome from?

Furthermore, who was selectively breeding god? Ubergod?

C'mon, zed, I want to know where god came from.

I want to know where god came from.

Posted by goatman at 2009-10-22 08:21 PM

You've pissed God off lately and He doesn't want to talk to you so He's not saying.

...He doesn't want to talk to you ...

So what else is new?

Of what? Other gods?

Imagine an orgy where some Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Persian deities all took ecstasy... heavy on the breeding, easy on the selection.

You've pissed God off lately and He doesn't want to talk to you so He's not saying.

His Spokesman is apparently not interested in conversation, either.

"His Spokesman..."

Is this a promotion?

Imagine an orgy where some Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Persian deities all took ecstasy... heavy on the breeding, easy on the selection.

I heard they threw Quetzalcoatl out because no one could pronounce his name. Besides, the whole feathered snake thing was too weird in the orgy -- even to them.

Zed, why do you theists always clam up when this question is asked:

Where did god come from?

I think the ultimate nature of God is inherently incomprehensible in human terms, to include origin. In other words, a mystery.

"Where did god come from?"

He is the Great "I AM"

And that's the end of that!

It's nightime...I'm not getting into deep discussions.

I'm here to nuts around now!!

lol

Chris:

Did you see my response to you about the wallpaper?

Pardon me, Goatman, but Im still musing over your perverse misunderstanding oy post on another thread, Do really think science is hard to understand?

"Oy post..."

Yiddish.

In other words, a mystery.

Ah -- the old "He works in mysterious ways" argument. Works for me -- NOT!

Everything can fit into Goatman's brain? Really?

Do really think science is hard to understand?

As applied in its purest form? Of course not.

Then why assume anyone doesn't understand it?

Everything can fit into Goatman's brain? Really?

One can't know until one tries. So try me without the word "mystery"

Then why assume anyone doesn't understand it?

Ask someone who makes that ssumption

I am.

You are what?

Please, don't be mysterious. That is a another common debating tactic for theists.

zed -- I'm still curious of your opinion of where god came from. If you don't know, say so. There is no disgrace in that.

However, there is also no disgrace in those of us who pursue the answer of where where the universe came from.

So zed -- in your opinion, where did god come from. Don't be afraid of overfilling my little pea brain. If it explodes, my death won't be blamed on you.

You've pissed God off lately and He doesn't want to talk to you

That's OK He has given me power of attorney talk to me

In the event that we are all not simply illusions to self with falsely percieved senses, something had to exist from the beginning of time.

There are two choices
1. Something that was not alive, therefore not personal
2. a being that was alive in the sense that it is personal and capable of thought.

So far the jury is out on which of the two are the cause of what we have here.

One of them had to be ever existing.

In terms of the BBT, the little tiny might of matter could not have been ever existing because for time, space and matter to be created, it would have to be created outside of time space and matter, therefore no comprised of either criteria before inception.

If there is a God, or originator, that originator would have to be ever present

If there is no God or originator, then something else had to be ever present that would start of the creation that is not matter, space or time.

Our subjective understaning is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. However that is within our universal time space matter bounds.

The theory of special relativity is not observable and therefore not something that is a completely verified fact (objective) but rather a subjective fact in terms of assumption.

The universe is here, it got her somehow
either:
1. A non personal eternal existince of some non substance
2. a personal entitiy of originator that does not have to be misconstrued as any diety of any current religion, but rather a simple intellegent agent outside of the confines of time, space and matter.

God does not have to originate if he is the originator.

But something had to exist before this current time, space and matter reality.

There are two options.

You ask cutesy questions in order to seem sly. There is not an infinite progression of matter creating matter. The universe has been found to have a beginning.

It began, and you must decide whether it was a personal beginning or an apersonal beginning.

The theory of special relativity is not observable and therefore not something that is a completely verified fact (objective) but rather a subjective fact in terms of assumption.

???

GPS has to take into account special relativity in order to be accuate. The time dilation on the Voyagers has been noted. It is even noted on terrestrial satellites

WTF are you talking about?

There is not an infinite progression of matter creating matter.

Nor was that suggested -- at least not by me. I can't speak for others.

To assume that god has been around forever begs the question: Why did he wait an forever (literally, since 'forever' is an infinite amount of time) to create the universe?

And though you may dismiss it by calling it a "cutesy question", it is a valid one: Where did god come from? I don't buy into the "he was here forever" thing.

I didn't dismiss it. I answered your question, you refuse to accept that answer.

Those are the choices.

The theory of special relativity is not completely verified because the constant nature of the speed of light is not something that we can observe. We have to assume that the speed of light is a constant.

Therefore, my suggestion of subjective fact on part of assumption.

You cannot analyze the special theory of relativity with science due to the contancy of the speed of light, we have to assume the constancy of the speed of light to come up with the special theory.

You have to admit that both:
1. a non personal beginning
and
2. a personal beginning from a personal beginner
are possible.

That which is responsible for the origination has to always be there, otherwise, infinite progression of causes.

First, let's decide what the debate is: The special theory, or where did god/universe come from or the constancy of the speed of light. I'm willing to discuss either (or anything else) but one at a time to avoid confusion

I won't fall for the trap you are laying.

I like your suggestion better.

And I would charge you with already showing that you are presuppatory and assuming based on the fact that I was not laying any trap. You are already on the defensive for some reason.

I offered the relativity aspect in regard to you question as to believing things that we are not sure about and I have given you a plausable response as to where God came from, and why it might be that way.

You are already on the defensive for some reason.

I looked at your user page. I saw you asking Danforth a couple of dozen times like a child to guess your age. That was a trap. I don't to traps.

Now that you know I have perused your user page, do you still question my defensive posture?

When I stated that, in my opinion, the origins of reality (God) are unknowable, I was being serious.

I commend scientists and theologians both for continuing to work on the subject. They get an "A" for effort. But the answers are beyond human psychology.

Again, just my opinion. But if we ever get an approximation to an approximation to an approximation to what everything is really about, that would be shocking.

What we little we'll ever know about reality we've discovered (science, but also art) or we've been told (God). Ain't never going to be anything contradicting.

Arguments such as we engage in are trivial. God laughs at them more frequently than we do.

When I stated that, in my opinion, the origins of reality (God) are unknowable, I was being serious.

At the risk of sounding condescending, I have to state that I feel it is more noble to seek the truth than to throw up one's hands and proclaim "It is unknowable".

But if there is a god, he made me this way. Blame him. With that, I have to pull out my favorite Tommy J quote, which I'm sure you've seen before:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

Yes I still question your defensive nature, as Danforth was proposing that his logical capabilities were far superior than others in the conversation.

However I was proving to him that he could not figure out something so simply as my age, with the given criteria

1. My age is in question
2. He could easily deduce my age from Post # 23
3. He was looking for a numerical value to my age.

Inside post number 23 there were no other numerical values. The only numerical value present was the # 23 and he failed to see this.

He had been deflecting arguements for some time, attempting to claim that others were "bearing false witness", when he himself can be no authority on others subjective (personal) thoughts or motives, nor their objective (intrinsically (sic) true) thoughts or motives. He had to assume, and that assumption came based on his predisposed bias.

Now you seem to have shown me that you do not seek to understand context or background to issues discussed befor presupposing or assuming upon them.

This does not bode well to you.

This does not bode well to you.

So the words on your user page are not a true representation of you? I based my assumptions on them. Anyone who would aske over 20 times (especially with no response!) "guess my age" is either childish, argumentative, or both. Do you disagree?

"Throw up one's hands and say it's unknowable..."

I offered an hypothesis. You need to describe things accurately; you are capable of that, I've seen you do it.

I'm willing to fund billions of dollars and spend hundreds of years for my hypothesis to be tested. Knock yourself out using the money and the time, and do feel noble in the process. Feelings mean so much in science, after all.

At the end of it all, experimentation will prove me correct. Yes, this last part is faith. As ZAT often states: Deal with it.

However I was proving to him ...

I think asking the question once or twice "proved" your point. Any more is simply being argumentative or childish. Do you not agree?

"At the risk of sounding condescending...."

Got a chuckle out of that one. But, of course, you long ago met your match in me.

Yes, this last part is faith. As ZAT often states: Deal with it.

Sorry, zed. Love you, man, but I can't deal with faith. I deal with facts. Your god made me this way.

"Your God made me this way..."

Then send Him a word of thanks. He makes the rain fall on both of us.

Did the mutations create itself into a flagella??

I was dealing with Danforth goatman, who berides those when they make a point. so I had to make the point abundantly clear.

I had showed him previous things twice or more, but they were discounted.

If you want to base what you see and think you understand over the explanation from the one who said and thought those things and put them into action for a purpose, then go ahead. Which is a more logical position and which a more reasonable source?

Did the mutations create itself into a flagella??

Over time, yes. It is highly unlikely that there was a single mutation that caused full-blown flagellum from a non-flagellated parent.

I was dealing with Danforth goatman, who berides those when they make a point. so I had to make the point abundantly clear.

Danforth is not an idiot. I'm sure he got your point immediately. If not, he certainly wouldn't after 10 times. Yet you kept going.

You appeared (to me, anyway -- can't speak for others) as a belligerent, argumentative child. But that's just me. You may have appeared to be the voice of perfect reason to others.

If you want to base what you see and think you understand over the explanation from the one who said and thought those things and put them into action for a purpose, then go ahead. Which is a more logical position and which a more reasonable source?

I'm willing to put whatever transpired with other users behind you.

What is the point you wish to debate?

I had nothing to debate. I simply posed and asnwer to your question dealing with the existence (eternal) of God.

Which is a more logical position and which a more reasonable source?

#92 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

You are a poor source but so is Danforth. I wouldn't believe a word either one of you say.

I am not talking about myself and Danforth, Jackass.

I am speaking about words that can be easily misunderstood, or a personal, primary source, i.e, the person who thought and stated those words knowing (or more closely knowing) the objective motivations for those words rathar than the appearing, and person subjective evaluation of those words.

The theory of special relativity is not completely verified because the constant nature of the speed of light is not something that we can observe. We have to assume that the speed of light is a constant.

Light is electromagnetic radiation, and electromagnetic radiation propagates at a constant speed. You can thank this guy named Maxwell for codifying all of that into some nice equations.

All Einstein did was realize that light, since it is electromagnetic radiation, should be measured to have the same speed by all observers.

It's not at all controversial unless you are a creationist trying to explain away redshifts.

And guess what... light is measured to have a constant speed. It's known rather precisely, as a matter of fact. Little of the technology we take for granted could function if the speed of light were variable.

It's not at all controversial unless you are a creationist trying to explain away redshifts.

Or a Fritz Zwicky (love that guy's name!) and 'tired light' supporters.

"light is measured to have a constant speed"

But what's the subjective interpretation of that data?

~Zed

Redshifts are not important to me. I do not need to explain them away. The scripture has plenty of information that makes a case for a longer period of creation.

I should have clarified it better, but I was in the middle of something during that process. Maybe this helps a little bit.

Science cannot be justified by the scientific method, science is permeated with unprovable assumptions like: the special theory of relativity.
The whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points, but that strictly cannot be proven, we have to assume that in order to hold to the theory of relativity.

"The whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points"

and guess what moron.

people are working in science every day to disprove that assumption and so far have not... but are still going to try until they can prove it as a fact or not true.

something you theists never ever do.
you prove nothing and use the scripture as fact

all theists do is try to "prove" and very loosely the words in scripture based on shotty evidence and claim they have fact.

Sorry Kliff, that is a false analogy.

The scripture is always under archeaological studies to find different sites and locations. It is always under cultural studies to see if what cultural context was correct, it is always under textual criticism to see if the words are accurate, genuine, or counfounded and fraudulant, recent or older.

That assumption cannot be scientifically verified, nor observed, nor repeated. It canot fall under the scope of science. Just face it. You can get conclusions that lead you as more likely to believe that assumption, but you cannot study that assumption directly.

Your dislike towards theism takes you directly to the Bible, when no one is mentioning the Bible in the original context.

To talk about a theos, or a creator a being outside of our physical, and temporal norms which began the universe (cannot be a flying spaghetti monster, because that which creates the universe must be outside space and matter (last time I checked spaghetti is matter that takes up space).

Automatically though to dispute theism in general people jump to the scriptures, or other religions and harp on that when that is not even the argument.

I watched tony flew do it in a debate. The debate was about the existence of a creating agent and he went into things about hell and free will etc, when it wasnt about the "christian" god, just the concept of god in general.

You commit the same fallacy.

Science cannot be justified by the scientific method, science is permeated with unprovable assumptions like: the special theory of relativity.

Special relativity is a testable theory and has been confirmed on multiple occasions. To state otherwise is nothing more than a demonstration of ignorance.

Deal with it.

Special theory of relativity 'unprovable'?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

idiot flag

The scripture is always under archeaological studies to find different sites and locations. It is always under cultural studies to see if what cultural context was correct, it is always under textual criticism to see if the words are accurate, genuine, or counfounded and fraudulant, recent or older.

But no matter the religion, scripture is assumed by the believer to be true from the beginning. This assumption is the foundation for every inane argument to follow.

To talk about a theos, or a creator a being outside of our physical, and temporal norms which began the universe

I don't care what kind of logical contortions you have to put yourself through to make the existence of god plausible... it doesn't matter in the end. You're still positing the existence of an undetectable entity that is capable of meddling with perception and reality at a whim. Worse, you don't even have a rational basis for doing so. Of what use is a claim that cannot be built upon or even verified?

...cannot be a flying spaghetti monster, because that which creates the universe must be outside space and matter (last time I checked spaghetti is matter that takes up space).

First, why does the creator of space and time have to be "outside" it? You can be "outside" a region of space by being causally disconnected from it, but then you would have to bow down and worship every black hole in the sky. If something can exist "outside" of our familiar spacetime, that means our universe is contained within something else. I can deal with higher dimensions and multiverses - but if these exist, they are part of spacetime despite the fact that we are not familiar with them. The notion of being "outside" of spacetime is as absurd as north of the north pole.

Also, if you think that our local bit of the universe had to have been "created," why rational basis do you have for thinking that the more exotic parts of it are eternal? By your standards, they must have a creator, too. The notion that the universe must have a creator and god must be eternal seems like a contrived afterthought thrown in to prevent the concept of god from being reduced to absurdity.

Finally, the FSM is made out of magical substance that our measly human minds can only process as spaghetti and meatballs. You should read more of the great pastafarian scholars. Perhaps you simply lack the faith required to believe that a being made of voodoo pasta could create the universe. The Noodly Appendage of the FSM is not bound by logic, causality, or any natural law. The FSM could have transformed itself into pasta after creating the universe for all you know. It's within the power of an omnipotent being.

Are you beginning to see how every absurdity of a religion that you expose can be addressed by a believer willing to twist reality and remove the threat to cherished beliefs?

What we little we'll ever know about reality we've discovered (science, but also art) or we've been told (God).

Funny thing... different people are "told" different things by different gods, and none of them have a shred of evidence to back up their individual opinion.

Stick with discovery.

It is still due to assumption. You claim it is not. Tell me where it is intricically true without assumption?

Also, if a beginner is there it must be changeless. It cannot change into whatever you want it to.

You can't simply admit that the flying spaghetti monster is a poor and failed analogy?

It is still due to assumption. You claim it is not. Tell me where it is intricically true without assumption?

The only "assumption" underlying special relativity is that the same laws of physics apply everywhere, and all non-accelerating observers will agree on them. If you want to complain about how that is invalid, perhaps you can show a region where different physical laws are at work. Perhaps you can propose a testable mechanism by which physical laws can change. Didn't think so... moving on.

Check out Maxwell's equations. They are consistent with experiment and observation as well. You can write the equations in a way that describes a wave - an electromagnetic wave. When you solve for velocity, you will find that it is always a constant that depends on the material that the wave is passing through. When you measure the velocity of electromagnetic waves, you indeed measure a constant velocity.

Light is electromagnetic radiation. If you want proof, google "solar panel". Light must therefore propagate with a constant velocity. This becomes a problem because two observers can be moving relative to one another, but they must both observe on the same speed of light. In order for the speed of light to be seen as a constant, measurements of distance and time have to differ between observers moving relative to one another.

Light is massless but possesses momentum and carries energy. An observer's velocity relative to the light source shifts the observed wavelength (energy) and momentum. This can all be experimentally verified, and is the basis for mass-energy equivalence.

There is more evidence that Jesus existed than the Flying spaghetti monster.

Also, this is not about Christianity, but rather the concept of God.

The creator does not have to be
1. omnipotent
2. omniscient
3. omnipresent
4. omnibenevolent

It is only in the event that Jesus the claimed Christ is truly resurrected that "Christianity" can be attributed as true.

Our subjective understaning is that matter cannot be created or destroyed

Matter is interchangeable with energy.

The theory of special relativity is not completely verified because the constant nature of the speed of light is not something that we can observe. We have to assume that the speed of light is a constant.

E = mc**2 gets ignored again. It's kind of basic stuff. Good call Dibblda.

I looked at the site. That is all well and good, however all I was asserting is that the speed of light must be assumed. That is all.

How come centuries of Scots reproducing has not improved the stock, but gave us Rod Stewart?

How come centuries of Scots reproducing has not improved the stock, but gave us Rod Stewart?

#117 | Posted by Diablo

Hey there are occasional mutants you know!

Okay, Gimme. I will be tactful. Now about Annie Lennox....

logical: the people that know the least on evolution are the ones that don't believe in it. The fruits of evolution are many, the vaccines that save lives, the eradication of disease, and in my case, the use of pig heart valves in humans, I have 2 pig valves (aortic & mitral) that saved my life. Their are thousands of examples available of the fruits of evolution, the evolution deniers, though stuck in the dark ages, also benefit, they just don't know it.

There is more evidence that Jesus existed than the Flying spaghetti monster.

Where?

The age of your scripture and popularity of your beliefs says nothing about their accuracy. Where is your physical evidence of Jesus' divinity, and where is your proof that Pastafarianism is not the One True Religion?

It is only in the event that Jesus the claimed Christ is truly resurrected that "Christianity" can be attributed as true.

There is no evidence for the divinity of Jesus beyond the uncorroborated claims of the Bible. The Bible was written and compiled long after the events it describes by a group of individuals who were trying to start a new religion. Of course they're going to say that their front-man is God incarnate... they're advertising their new religion and you don't push a product by describing it as "mediocre at best".

I'll put it in terms of fast food. There is a difference between the delicious looking BK Whopper you see advertised on TV and the flattened greaseballs you get in the drive-thru. Following your logic, fast food hamburgers are assumed to look just like they do in commercials, and this assumption may never be questioned no matter how many times you are handed a stale burger. Following your logic, I should keep ordering Whoppers and expect to get fresh burgers with non-shitty lettuce and ripe tomato every time. I say, why bother with fast food in the first place?

I can under stand yout analogy.

However, we know that Jesus existed, we do not have any proof whatsoever that the flying spaghetti monster has ever existed. We have never seen spaghetti fly, nor have we seen meatballs fuse with spaghetti and create an animated creature. We have no proof of spaghetti monster in creation. How can you verify the unique qualities of a spaghetti monster by what you see in the world?

You are attibuting properties to the creator that do no have to be attributed to a creative being. As I said, we are not discussing "christianity" as the true religion here, nor the specific qualities of a God, that is a different arguement in itself. You have to first extablish if there is a beginning agent that is personal in the first place.

Only personal in the sense that it can create something other than itself.

You are trying to divert the arguement to tertiary issues so that it makes the initial issue seem like a nonsensical issue. This is also why people over simplify and claim, "sky daddy, cannibal zombie God, sky fairy, magic rain maker, et al."

These are diversionary descriptions that show a complete lack of understanding of the claims (regardless of whether those claims are true or false). You are misrepresenting what is being said or believed by what you are trying to disprove. Thus ad hominum attacks to make it look more foolish.

Good grief! How does this thread get from evolution in 40,000 generations of an E. coli culture to a stale BK Whopper?

No wait, it does make sense...

This is evolution of discussion in 124 posts.

Their own textbooks state that selection for advantage is not evolution but selection

Man they are reaching.
Notice, it is STILL E-COLI!
Also advantages limit generality, they may no longer survive "in the wild" etc.

Also E-Coli has R isomers in sugars and amino acids. (prokaryotes)

eukaryotes have L isomers that means mirro image and totally different quaternary structure it is impossible for a germ to progress to a eukaryote there has to be a momemnt where everything switches, that is like saying the porsche, with just one more change will be a ferrari.

Never gonna happen
GIVE IT UP you religious fanatics, evolution cant happen.
Evolution is a religion and not science because in the lab you can esily prove that L isomers alone cannot be made from general solutions, impossible, but they will never talk about this.

Going from ORIGIN of the species to bacterial selection is a massive reach, darwing was a failed pastor and wanted an excuse to pork women and drink beer without feeling guilty so he called his uncle a monkey.

pure truth.

This experiment also disproves evolution altogether

40,000 generations time 30 years is 2 million years

in 2 million years ONE cell comes up with 45 errors and it is still an ECOLI!

shoot, it should have been a frog by now!

man in 4 million years there would have been 90 mutations wow! and the Dna is only one million long!

at this rate in a trillion years it could be a KLEBSIELLA!

cant you guys see, this is stupid?

IT
IS
STILL
AN E COLI!

This DISPROVES evolutionn altogether.

prokaryotes multiply FAST! mammals are thousandsof times slower in cell turnover

Why it would take a billion years to change hair color!

and to develop and eye so it could eat better?

well it ate fine for a million years why need an eye?

Very interesting, but shtupit.

This ecoli has been replicating NOT FROM A LABORATORY but for thousands of years, and they had e-coli in bible times and before that. It has and always will be e-coli so even if GERMS dont show any MISSING LINKS (And they DONT!)
and they multiply like wild fire for thousands of years and STILL
ECOLI!

GET IT?
you just disproved evolution, and then they say it proves evolution.

You guys watch too much television, all they do is tell you what something means and you believe it even though it doesnt mean that.

I could set a log on fire and burn it up and then afterward say SEE? LOGS DONT BURN!

and you would believe it.

Darwins version of evolution predicts the changing of one species into another. Notice that after 46,000 generations they are STILL E Coli. Better E Coli but E Coli none the less. NO NEW SPECIES.

Notice also that there are only 653 Mutations by the 40,000 generation. For most mammals that would be equal to 2Million years to get to 653. It has been estimated that it takes apx. 1500 mutations in an amoeba to produce a flagella. (and all must occur..if one changes back the cell will not produce the flagella)

So...take a look at the creatures in the Mesozoic which extended from 251 to 65.5 Million years ago