Right, it says that sperm is squirted from the chest. Still factually wrong because sperm comes from the testicles, and thus, Islam has been disproven since Allah would not have been wrong.
If he didn't believe in God, he was an atheist, whether he called himself one or not. "Atheist" is something you are. It's not something you label yourself.
None of them can be correct, since no humans were around as witnesses. Like a jury in a court, look at the evidence and decide which you want to believe. Remember to look at the evidence, not someone's INTERPRETATION of it.
You are getting it all wrong. Evidence is evidence. You can't pick and choose the way you are obviously doing. You can't just choose not to accept evidence that contradicts your superstition. Again, evidence is evidence, and the error creationist scumbags make is that they ignore all evidence which shows that their nonsensical drivel is wrong.
No, evidence is evidence. THIS is where religious fucktards fail: They IGNORE evidence which does not support their superstition. That's not how science works.
For every evolutionary INTERPRETATION of the actual evidence, there is also a intelligent design interpretation.
Except the creationist interpretation is based on lies, straw men, dishonesty and leaving out facts that don't match their religion. YOU YOURSELF ADMITTED THIS ABOVE! YOU CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT YOU WILL IGNORE EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT MATCH YOUR SUPERSTITION.
You are the jury and may pick which interpretation of the evidence you want to believe.
No, if you want to choose the interpretation with FULL SUPPORT FROM ALL EVIDENCE, evolution is the only option. There is no evidence what so ever for creationism.
From here:
No, this is mere your complete lack of knowledge about the scientific process. There is nothing magical about looking at the evidence (DNA, the fossil record, observed mechanisms, etc.) and making a conclusion based on that.
Time and chance are the evolutionists substitute for God.
No. First of all, there are many christian evolutionists. So that debunks your insane nonsense right there.
Now, there's a fundamental difference between belief in God and acceptance of science: While God is impossible to prove/disprove, science is all about looking at the evidence. A scientific theory must be supported by ALL the evidence available, and it must also be possible to invalidate. To show that it is contrary to some evidence, which means that it is no longer viable.
Evolutionists and Christians are like two independent juries looking at the SAME evidence.
AGAIN, there are MANY CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS, so stop being a fucking idiot. I have told you this several times by now, you fucking scumbag. Stop being a dishonest slimeball.
The thousands of years or billions of years differences arise by certain assumptions about time measurements.
No assumptions. SCIENCE.
It depends on how you define a "year".
No it does not. The universe is BILLIONS of years old, in YEARS AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY.
Atomic time and gravity time are not the same measurement system in the same way that inches and centimeters are not.
AGAIN: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS CLAIM? STOP BEING A FUCKING RETARDED IDIOT, AND ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION.
I believe the earth is in the billions of years old by the atomic time scale and in the thousands of years in the gravitational, orbital time scale.
You BELIEVE. That is, you ignore all evidence and have a blind belief in something. And you are a dishonest fucking douchebag who ignores everything people write.
Take a very good look at the not extinct frog fish.
What about it?
Then something has magically changed withing the last 2 months because science has change the position of Neanderthal being a separate species and brought it into the same species.
Actually, they though we and Neanderthals were on the same "branch".
And the only reason I signified that with Micro verses macro was because that is the basis of the dispute between creation and evolution which we are discussing.
There is no "micro vs. macro evolution". It's just evolution. Unless you can point to the specific barrier/mechanism which prevents minor changes from resulting in major changes over time, you have no case, Young Earth Creationist.
TO suggest that it is fact that we are separate from the DNA evidence
Which no one has.
And it is likewise with your interpretations.
They are not MY interpretations. They are research done by actual scientists who publish their findings in peer reviewed journals, unlike creationists, who skip the whole scientific process.
You somehow took that to mean that I was pushing inteligent design or young earth science or whatever.
You are promoting pseudoscience. You don't accept evolution, right? You think earth is 6000 years old, right?
But no one made a claim that the judge in that case was liberal or not. In fact, you brought it up out of your own misunderstandings about what was said
No, I brought it up because creationists always use the "he is an activist judge" card. I simply pre-empted this obvious fallacy to save you from embarrassing yourself again.
Evolution isn't. The way you are attempting to push it and defend it is.
I mean how hard is it to make predictions come true when your the one interpreting the evidence.
So you are saying that the discovery of Tiktaalik was, what? Anyway, this comment merely shows that you lack an even basic understanding of science.
How can you claim to not be a creationist when all you do is to spew out the same old refuted nonsense that creationists have been spewing out for years?
Neanderthal man was homo sapien- they were us. This is commonly accepted in modern science.
No. We actually have DNA from neanderthals, and it turns out that we share a common ancestor, and are different branches on the evolutionary tree.
I mentioned by design as in the interpretation of certain evidence is done purely to support other evidence and ideas.
In the case of creationists, the evidence is not interpreted. It is twisted, distorted, evidence to the contrary is left out, etc.
I did not and never have supported ID or creationism in the relm of science
Then why are you promoting it here?
And I do not see why it would matter if bush appointed him or Clinton or whoever.
Because it removes any useless claims that he was a "liberal activist judge" or nonsense like that.
You are making this a religious battle and you picked evolution as your religion.
How is Evolution a religion? Be specific, please.
SO your claiming that those papers published in the new scientist...
No, I am pointing out that misrepresenting scientific papers is unscientific.
So scientists discovered some bacteria that adapted to be able to live on some man made material, such as nylon and related compounds. How does that show that a crocodile can become an eagle or any reptile be an ancestor to any bird?
I have already addressed this, so why do you keep repeating your lies? Here is the answer again: "Reptiles do not suddenly make birds. Again your lack of knowledge shines through. It is a gradual process." Reptiles TODAY don't suddenly start producing birds.
I have also explained to you what Nylonase shows: "we know that there is no limit to how an organism can change because there is no limit to how proteins can change". Please pay attention. Stop asking questions that I've already answered.
I am disputing that big jump from such small changes to then asserting that reptiles can therefore evolve into birds.
See above. Reptiles TODAY don't suddenly start producing birds. Why do you keep repeating nonsense I've already answered? Are you being dishonest on purpose, or are you just unable to insert new information into your brain?
So what if speciation has taken place.
It means that major changes have taken place. It means that we can observe speciation TODAY.
That experiment and many others clearly show that genetic LAW doesn't allow for the major changes needed to make a jump from an ant to a bee or a reptile to a bird.
What "genetic law" might that be? And the jump you are referring to is another pathetically dishonest straw man. See above, where I point out: "It is a gradual process."
Experiment and observation show that these large scale jumps just don't happen.
That is because THEY ARE NOT LARGE SCALE JUMPS. THEY ARE GRADUAL CHANGES. Are you completely fucking thick, or are you just trolling? How many fucking times do I have to tell you that IT'S A FUCKING GRADUAL PROCESS? Furthermore, I have already mentioned Nylonase, where a completely new protein/enzyme has appeared. And if there is no limit to the changes in proteins, THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE POSSIBLE CHANGES OF THE ORGANISM ITSELF. I have already told you this, but YOU JUST DON'T FUCKING LISTEN, do you?
Genetic LAW prevents such chasms from being crossed.
What chasm? What "genetic law"?
Evolutionists insist on the existence of processes in the past, that we don't see today in nature, nor can we duplicate them in the lab.
Wrong AGAIN. See Nylonase. See speciation.
Again, POINT TO THE SPECIFIC BARRIER. Even if your claim that we have not been able to recreate major changes, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. So you must be able to point to a SPECIFIC barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in major changes over time ONLY in the case of Evolution.
When a crime investigator, looking at the past, presents evidence in court, it is still up to the jury, whether they will BELIEVE the evidence
Wrong. Evidence is evidence. What the jury has to decide on is WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS.
So has anybody ever made a creature or observed a creature with "half a wing" or half of anything?
FOR FUCKS SAKE! DID YOU FUCKING LOOK UP "HALF A WING"? IT WOULD HAVE ANSWERED YOUR COMPLETELY IGNORANT AND INANE QUESTION.
I happen to believe that experimental and observational evidence has shown, that large scale transformations, such as from reptiles to birds do not happen today.
Actually, we observe Evolution even today. But you are completely ignorant about Evolution and think that it happens overnight or something. The fact that completely new proteins can form means that there is no limit to how organisms can change. Unless you can point to the SPECIFIC BARRIER (useless and dishonest claims that experiments and observat
Actually some scientists do beleive that some dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, yes. But that is not what you wrote. And it doesn't mean that a bird as we know them today suddenly popped out of a dinosaur from millions of years ago (nor does a dinosaur or lizzard pop out of a bird). It was a gradual change.
The problem is where in the process does the DNA change so that the offspring couldn't even mate with it's brother's and sisters.
Again you are presenting a straw man. What happens is that, for example, two groups get separated geographically, and then evolve in different "directions", and eventually they stop being able to interbreed. It's not that members of the same pack of animals suddenly stop being able to breed! Scientists have even performed experiments with things like fruit flies, observing speciation: Groups were separated and bred separately. Eventually the two groups were no longer able to interbreed.
Speciation in Evolution doesn't make sense.
It does, and we know how and why it happens, and we have the experiments too. It is just that you seem to lack a lot of knowledge. The way you misunderstand Evolution is by no means new, but it is odd that even when someone explains how it actually works, you completely ignore that and go on with your false descriptions of Evolution.
Opera Mini supports JavaScript. Even Ajax, but with some limitations. There are articles at dev.opera.com detailing what it supports, and there are only a few exceptions.
The barrier is that we have never observed such large scale changes in nature.
No, no, no. You are trying to weasel your way out of the corner you painted for yourself. Identify the SPECIFIC barrier. You claim that many small changes do not result in major changes over time, even though in ALL OTHER situations, small changes will end up as major changes over time. Thus, you must identify the specific barrier that prevents Evolution from following this same law.
We also have, by best efforts of INTELLIGENT scientists, never been able to make anything other than small, minor changes in any organism.
That is incorrect. But irrelevant to the fact that you have yet to identify the barrier you claim to exist. Look up Nylonase again, where a completely new protein/enzyme has appeared in the last few decades. And if there is no limit to how proteins can change, there is no limit to how the whole organism can change. I have already made this point, but you pathetically ignore every piece of fact I throw at you in an attempt to educate you.
They may also no longer be able to breed with other fruit flies
In other words: Speciation has taken place. If two individuals cannot interbreed, they are different species. So clearly, the changes were large enough to create a new species. And we know that there is no limit to how an organism can change because there is no limit to how proteins can change (Nylonase).
All genetic experiments show that large scale evolution, such as from a reptile to a bird, does NOT happen, even with "simple" one celled organisms.
I notice that you continue to willfully ignore facts. I have already mentioned Nylonase several times, but you choose to ignore that and instead repeat claims that you KNOW are wrong because I have repeatedly shown them to be wrong.
Science is about experiments, not conjecture.
Science is about more than experiments in a lab, I'm afraid. How do you suggest that scientists should create supernovas in a lab? Or a sun? Or a galaxy? How do crime scene investigators figure out what happened? How can evidence in a court room be accepted? Your lack of knowledge about science is appalling. Or maybe you are simply being dishonest and pretending like science doesn't exist.
Since these large scale changes cannot be shown to occur today, you have to BELIEVE that they did occur in the past. However you cannot prove that belief any more than I can prove my belief that God exists.
False. We have evidence that shows Evolution to be correct. There is no such evidence for God.
Scientists have taken once living matter and made coal and oil.
Please point me to this experiment.
But again you are being a dishonest weasel and ignoring my points. Again:
Did you look up "half a wing"?
Stop changing the subject. Stop being a liar. Stop repeating already refuted garbage. Stop using straw men. Stop making unscientific claims about science.
No, it does, exactly because of predictions made because of Evolution that turn out to be correct.
No, we think we share a common ancestor but it is pointless because we has also shown that they were us.
In other words, you are willfully ignoring facts, such as DNA, the fossil record, evolutionary predictions, etc.
I never said the DNA was wrong, I said that all the circumstantial evident pointed to guilt and DNA proved that was incorrect.
Right, and in this case DNA shows that we all share a common ancestor.
I didn't mention religion.
You did. Creationism/ID is religion, as determined by a conservative christian judge who was appointed by Bush on recommendation from creationist senator Rick Santorum. You ignored this point, of course.
You basically claiming that the two can't coexist in the real world which also proves my other point about your bias.
False. I have specifically referred to christians who support evolution. You know about Ken Miller, right? The Roman Catholic expert witness during the Dover trial? The Wedge Strategy shows what the goal of the ID movement is, and the "father of ID" himself, Phillip Johnson, has confirmed that the goal is to fight the naturalistic world view he considers science to represent.
Wow, now your calling me a liar when exposing your fraud.
No, I am calling you liar because you are lying. Your arguments are based on logical fallacies and lies made up by religious fundamentalists. Evolution is supported by actual evidence, and has the scientific community's support.
what words was twisted?
You claimed that religious fundamentalists are doing science. But creationists are not doing science.
Who cares what they are doing. They are using science to do it.
They are not, as I pointed out.
And I don't understand what the focus on ID all the sudden came about.
All of a sudden? The focus on ID is because the IDers are trying to force their religion into science class.
Facts like your examples aren't the examples you want them to be because science has shown otherwise?
No, religious fundamentalists have claimed otherwise. The actual scientists who do the actual research get it right. Show me one single piece of original and useful research by the ID movement, please. Just one, to prevent you from using the normal creationist tactic of flooding people with claims and then running off. So give me just one single example. And that example better be good, because it's the only one I'm going to bother looking up. Make it count.
It is clear, at least, that you are indeed a creationist.
Your analogy would be more fitting if one were to drip water, but ended up with a cup full of gasoline or other liquid.
Not at all. The point here is that minor changes result in major changes over time. If you disagree, you must point out the specific barrier which prevents evolution from occurring on a large scale. If you cannot identify this barrier, you have lost the argument.
According to you raindrops fall as water but make the ground dry because the water becomes dust after enough time.
No, this is a straw man. I am not surprised that you have to resort to dishonest lies when cornered.
It's a process we cannot observe or duplicate.
Yes we can. Your ignorance doesn't change that. Why did you ignore what I wrote? Here it is again:
We have both observed speciation (groups being separated, and breeding over time until these groups are no longer able tpo interbreed), and the formation of completely new proteins/enzymes (Nylonase).
None of my examples are straw men, but taken from the school texts that preach evolution.
No they are not, because your straw men is not what Evolution actually means.
Nobody has ever observed such a transformation.
We have, as a matter of fact. And we can combine this with DNA evidence, the fossil record, etc.
you are believing that time can make evolution work. Well it doesn't and can't.
Baseless assertion. Try again.
Lots of small changes don't necessarily add up to a big change.
If this is correct, you should be able to identify the specific barrier which prevents this from occurring. Please identify this barrier.
Did you look up "half a wing", by the way? You are dishonestly ignoring my refutations and simply repeating your demonstrably false assertions.
There is nothing magical about small changes resulting to major changes over time. You can see this everywhere. You can even do the experiment yourself: Place a cup on the table and have drops fall into it, one by one. Eventually the cup will be filled with water.
How does a small change of a bird's beak become an entirely different animal, except by lots of time?
You are assuming that the only possible change is a change to the bird's beak. This basically shows your lack of knowledge on the matter. You constantly spew out straw men about Evolution.
We don't see that sort of major transformation today, so it must only have happened s-l-o-w-l-y over lots of time.
Actually, we do. We have both observed speciation (groups being separated, and breeding over time until these groups are no longer able tpo interbreed), and the formation of completely new proteins/enzymes (Nylonase).
How does "natural selection" make wings out of legs? What survival advantage is there to a half built, non-functional wing?
Once again you are ignorant and assume that because you are ignorant, everyone else is as well. Google "Half a wing", and limit it to the site "talkorigins dot org".
How do reptiles make birds? We are told in these books, that reptiles evolved into birds over lots of time.
Reptiles do not suddenly make birds. Again your lack of knowledge shines through. It is a gradual process. Like an empty cup of water to a full cup of water.
If you BELIEVE something, that doesn't make it scientific or factual.
There is no need to believe anything when it comes to Evolution. Evolution is supported by huge amounts of facts, after all.
Little children believe in that once upon a time stuff. Evidently, so do you.
Unfortunately, this is you dishonestly ignoring my points again, and using a straw man argument.
You have a lot of faith in impersonal time working the magic needed to make men out of monkeys.
This is yet another straw man. How many of them can you pull out of your rear orifice? Men are not made out of monkeys. Again, Evolution is a gradual process. It doesn't mean that one animal suddenly turns into another. Furthermore, there is nothing magical about time. It is well known that small changes result in major changes over time because there will be a lot of small changes. Like drops into a cup again. But you will of course deny this and claim that one and one drop for a long time will not result in a puddle. According to you, rain does not make things wet. Because, you say, small changes cannot possibly result in major changes over time.
You will no doubt ignore every word I wrote in this post and continue to be willfully ignorant.
The point is, it doesn't create the conflict with creation you were attempting to claim it does.
It does.
And it isn't that we didn't descend from Neanderthals, it is that they weren't a separate species.
We share a common ancestor.
Yes it can. that was the point of the article.
The article is wrong. Stop referring to it. It is factually incorrect.
All interpretive coincidental evidence.
Wrong. Much of this evidence was predicted to exist, based on the theory.
The same type of evidence that has put people on death row and federal prison to later find that DNA evidence points to someone else entirely.
False. The DNA itself is not wrong. It only gets wrong if someone tampers with the evidence.
But you have to ask, was this by design or simply circumstances?
"By design" is religion, not science (as determined by christian judge Jones in the Dover trial. Judge Jones was, by the way, appointed by George W. Bush on recommendation from creationist senator Rick Santorum). Thus, it is irrelevant in a discussion about science.
No, comments like Biased point of view shows why you think I am supporting or pushing something.
Which you are.
Why is it so important for you to do battle with these evil people?
And you do realize that the 6000 year number isn't in the bible at all
Dishonest religious fundamentalists still push this idea.
That's interesting because I spent some time looking up the stuff that was cited.
That's irrelevant for the fact that it is baloney.
It was supported by scientific authors who said the same thing to a degree as the story.
Wrong. Twisting of words and careful twisting of facts does not a good argument make.
You realize that your just as guilty as them. In fact even more so. Your taking this faith in that science done by certain people is more valuable then that of others and you are doing this blindly
Wrong again. Creationists are not doing science. They are doing PR. They have not produced one single piece of new, useful research. As mentioned above, a conservative christian judge, too, found ID to be creationism to be religion.
you pointed to two flawed examples
I did not. It is not my fault that you are willfully ignoring facts.
Please stop changing the subject. Please stop ignoring my points.
So then what is mutation based on
Have you ever heard about "natural selection"? Didn't think so. Apparently, your lack of knowledge is even worse than I thought.
Evolutionists try to convince everybody that time can do miracles.
No, they do not. Please stop being dishonest.
Nobody knows how to turn a crocodile into an eagle, yet evolutionists try to foist off the idea that birds evolve from reptiles.
Another dishonest straw man. On two levels:
1) "Evolution" doesn't mean that one specific indidividual morphs into another. It means that species change over time.
2) No one has claimed that eagles descended from crocodiles.
Extrapolation a small genetic variation of a fruit fly even into some other kind of insect, is not the same as predicting the orbits of heavenly bodies. Orbits are based on accurately quantifiable knowledge. We have no such knowledge of how to turn even a paramecium into an amoeba.
You are dishonestly ignoring the fact that there is more to Evolution than "small genetic variation of a fruit fly". But considering that you didn't even know about natural selection, I am not surprised how completely ignorant you are.
Evolutionists substitute time, immense periods of time, for the eternal Creator God. You have faith in time and I have faith in God. Let's just leave it at that.
No, the comparison is completely useless because scientists can actually describe the processes that take place. And Evolution both makes useful predictions and has practical applications. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology.
Oddly, back in the 1980's when I was in school, I was always told that there was a scientific difference between a proof and a theory and that a theory was, in essence, a guess based upon a series of supposed inferences based on data.
Then someone told you a lie. A theory in science is the highest order of things there is. A theory is the most useful thing in science. It is the goal of all scientific work.
A proof was data that could be experimentally verified.
No, that is called "evidence".
Evolution is a guess; admittedly a complicated one but a guess nonetheless.
Wrong. Evolution is: "A well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
I am an advocate that if you're teaching an opinion then *all* opinions are valid.
So alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Astrology in astronomy classes? Flat earth should be taught in geology classes? Holocaust denial in history classes?
If you can show me an actual scientific proof
Please stop being dishonest. I just explained this to you: "Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence."
My other point is that Athiests and Secular Humanists have used evolution as a religion substitute
Please provide me with evidence of this. Not that it matters. Making an argument from how desirable something is, is a fallacy. Whether or not Evolution is true does not depend on whether it is true or not.
wrecks and ruins a world-view where the only morality is a self-imposed one based on nothing other than the whims and the moment-to-moment of the desires of the self.
False. Morality depends on the culture. Morality is basically the way society has organized itself and taught new inhabitants how things work. By the way, in more secular countries like Norway and Sweden, crime rates are extremely low compared to more religious countries like the US. Why is that? I mean, if what you say is correct, then all the atheists in those countries should have caused a lot of problems already, but they don't. Crime raes are extremely low! Your claim is pure nonsense.
Darwinism would have us give all of that up for a moral black hole since there would be no commonly accepted frame of reference for right and wrong
In case you haven't noticed, there's no such thing as objective morals. It is all passed on through society.
and a deepest sense of purposelessness because there is nothing to look forward to in a life that is short, brutish, and pointless.
Nonsense. First of all, you can enjoy life without believing in God. Secondly, lots of christians accept evolution. You are just being dishonest again.
I asked you for ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. How hard can that be?
The movie you are referring to is a dishonest hit piece full of lies. Such as the nonsense with Dr. Sternberg, who was fired from his position as an editor of a scientific journal. The claim in Expelled is that he was fired for being a creationist, but this is a blatant lie. Sternberg was a member of a creationist organization before he got the job, and his employer knew it.
Sternberg was fired not for being a creationist, but for circumventing the standard procedures for publishing in scientific journals. He ignored all the rules and published a religious text in the scientific journ
No, what I call "normal time" is what everyone calls "normal time". And earth is billions of "normal time" old.
Tree rings, such as those from the Bristle Cone Pines in the White Mountains of California measure time by the yearly seasonal cycle, as clocked by gravity. The oldest of these has about 6000 such rings.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, it says that sperm is squirted from the chest. Still factually wrong because sperm comes from the testicles, and thus, Islam has been disproven since Allah would not have been wrong.
That's Flash 7, not Flash Lite 3 (which handles Flash 8 content).
He hates the idea/concept. The evil bastard who is described in the Bible, and which is forced on people all the time.
If he didn't believe in God, he was an atheist, whether he called himself one or not. "Atheist" is something you are. It's not something you label yourself.
Now, there's a fundamental difference between belief in God and acceptance of science: While God is impossible to prove/disprove, science is all about looking at the evidence. A scientific theory must be supported by ALL the evidence available, and it must also be possible to invalidate. To show that it is contrary to some evidence, which means that it is no longer viable.
AGAIN, there are MANY CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS, so stop being a fucking idiot. I have told you this several times by now, you fucking scumbag. Stop being a dishonest slimeball. No assumptions. SCIENCE. No it does not. The universe is BILLIONS of years old, in YEARS AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY. AGAIN: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS CLAIM? STOP BEING A FUCKING RETARDED IDIOT, AND ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION. You BELIEVE. That is, you ignore all evidence and have a blind belief in something. And you are a dishonest fucking douchebag who ignores everything people write.How can you claim to not be a creationist when all you do is to spew out the same old refuted nonsense that creationists have been spewing out for years?
No. We actually have DNA from neanderthals, and it turns out that we share a common ancestor, and are different branches on the evolutionary tree. In the case of creationists, the evidence is not interpreted. It is twisted, distorted, evidence to the contrary is left out, etc. Then why are you promoting it here? Because it removes any useless claims that he was a "liberal activist judge" or nonsense like that. How is Evolution a religion? Be specific, please. No, I am pointing out that misrepresenting scientific papers is unscientific.I have already addressed this, so why do you keep repeating your lies? Here is the answer again: "Reptiles do not suddenly make birds. Again your lack of knowledge shines through. It is a gradual process." Reptiles TODAY don't suddenly start producing birds.
I have also explained to you what Nylonase shows: "we know that there is no limit to how an organism can change because there is no limit to how proteins can change". Please pay attention. Stop asking questions that I've already answered.
See above. Reptiles TODAY don't suddenly start producing birds. Why do you keep repeating nonsense I've already answered? Are you being dishonest on purpose, or are you just unable to insert new information into your brain?
It means that major changes have taken place. It means that we can observe speciation TODAY.
What "genetic law" might that be? And the jump you are referring to is another pathetically dishonest straw man. See above, where I point out: "It is a gradual process."
That is because THEY ARE NOT LARGE SCALE JUMPS. THEY ARE GRADUAL CHANGES. Are you completely fucking thick, or are you just trolling? How many fucking times do I have to tell you that IT'S A FUCKING GRADUAL PROCESS? Furthermore, I have already mentioned Nylonase, where a completely new protein/enzyme has appeared. And if there is no limit to the changes in proteins, THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE POSSIBLE CHANGES OF THE ORGANISM ITSELF. I have already told you this, but YOU JUST DON'T FUCKING LISTEN, do you?
What chasm? What "genetic law"?
Wrong AGAIN. See Nylonase. See speciation.
Again, POINT TO THE SPECIFIC BARRIER. Even if your claim that we have not been able to recreate major changes, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. So you must be able to point to a SPECIFIC barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in major changes over time ONLY in the case of Evolution.
Wrong. Evidence is evidence. What the jury has to decide on is WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS.
FOR FUCKS SAKE! DID YOU FUCKING LOOK UP "HALF A WING"? IT WOULD HAVE ANSWERED YOUR COMPLETELY IGNORANT AND INANE QUESTION.
Actually, we observe Evolution even today. But you are completely ignorant about Evolution and think that it happens overnight or something. The fact that completely new proteins can form means that there is no limit to how organisms can change. Unless you can point to the SPECIFIC BARRIER (useless and dishonest claims that experiments and observat
Look up the fruit fly experiment by Diane Dodd, which can be easily reproduced. Or even the domestic sheep example, which is also mentioned there :)
Opera is Norwegian, and Norway has extremely strict privacy laws. Opera has been in business for more than ten years, and is definitely trustworthy.
Opera Mini supports JavaScript. Even Ajax, but with some limitations. There are articles at dev.opera.com detailing what it supports, and there are only a few exceptions.
Opera Mini does support SSL. The connection between the phone and the proxy is encrypted as well.
But again you are being a dishonest weasel and ignoring my points. Again:
Did you look up "half a wing"?
Stop changing the subject. Stop being a liar. Stop repeating already refuted garbage. Stop using straw men. Stop making unscientific claims about science.
Also, you ignored my links. Why?
It is clear, at least, that you are indeed a creationist.
We have both observed speciation (groups being separated, and breeding over time until these groups are no longer able tpo interbreed), and the formation of completely new proteins/enzymes (Nylonase).
No they are not, because your straw men is not what Evolution actually means. We have, as a matter of fact. And we can combine this with DNA evidence, the fossil record, etc. Baseless assertion. Try again. If this is correct, you should be able to identify the specific barrier which prevents this from occurring. Please identify this barrier.Did you look up "half a wing", by the way? You are dishonestly ignoring my refutations and simply repeating your demonstrably false assertions.
You will no doubt ignore every word I wrote in this post and continue to be willfully ignorant.
1) "Evolution" doesn't mean that one specific indidividual morphs into another. It means that species change over time.
2) No one has claimed that eagles descended from crocodiles.
You are dishonestly ignoring the fact that there is more to Evolution than "small genetic variation of a fruit fly". But considering that you didn't even know about natural selection, I am not surprised how completely ignorant you are. No, the comparison is completely useless because scientists can actually describe the processes that take place. And Evolution both makes useful predictions and has practical applications. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology.Then someone told you a lie. A theory in science is the highest order of things there is. A theory is the most useful thing in science. It is the goal of all scientific work.
No, that is called "evidence".
Wrong. Evolution is: "A well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
So alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Astrology in astronomy classes? Flat earth should be taught in geology classes? Holocaust denial in history classes?
Please stop being dishonest. I just explained this to you: "Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence."
Please provide me with evidence of this. Not that it matters. Making an argument from how desirable something is, is a fallacy. Whether or not Evolution is true does not depend on whether it is true or not.
False. Morality depends on the culture. Morality is basically the way society has organized itself and taught new inhabitants how things work. By the way, in more secular countries like Norway and Sweden, crime rates are extremely low compared to more religious countries like the US. Why is that? I mean, if what you say is correct, then all the atheists in those countries should have caused a lot of problems already, but they don't. Crime raes are extremely low! Your claim is pure nonsense.
In case you haven't noticed, there's no such thing as objective morals. It is all passed on through society.
Nonsense. First of all, you can enjoy life without believing in God. Secondly, lots of christians accept evolution. You are just being dishonest again.
I asked you for ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. How hard can that be?
The movie you are referring to is a dishonest hit piece full of lies. Such as the nonsense with Dr. Sternberg, who was fired from his position as an editor of a scientific journal. The claim in Expelled is that he was fired for being a creationist, but this is a blatant lie. Sternberg was a member of a creationist organization before he got the job, and his employer knew it.
Sternberg was fired not for being a creationist, but for circumventing the standard procedures for publishing in scientific journals. He ignored all the rules and published a religious text in the scientific journ
Cite your sources, please. And I don't want Answers in Genesis or other ridiculous, anti-scientific nonsense sites.