Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in God?

  • Yes

    Votes: 71 34.6%
  • No

    Votes: 122 59.5%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 12 5.9%

  • Total voters
    205

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Well you are wrong on all points.
I'm not a bible believer, I do follow science and everything I cite, like you and those who believe in evolution, is backed by science.

To call scientists who do not agree with evolution, fringe, demonstrates your own close-mindedness.


You are not a bible believer, but your video is from answersingenesis, a completely bias christian site infamous for mis-information. You follow science, but cannot even source your material for validity. Right. Science is based on peer review, are you familiar with the process? If you were, you wouldn't use creationist websites as sources. What I will do tonight is go through your video, look up the 'experts' that are citing this misinformation, do a few minutes of research on each, and show you how each is a fraud or laughing stock in the scientific community. Unless you'd like to do this before I get to it. Stay tuned...
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
"Scientists or two creationists responding to a clip about a debate about evolution?

Pretty substantial difference there, bud.."

Yet you supply one. LOL

I don't except evolution or the orthodox theory of "creation"
Everything you've asked me to explain, you can't explain yourself and neither can scientists.
All I am saying is, evolution is not proven, and that is a fact.
To this day there is no evidence of any kind of missing link, in fact, it is proven that humans cannot reproduce with primates, yet Darwins theory says we descended from them.
And the fact that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed because the replication contains built-in error checking. Kind of hard to claim a horse came from a fish when their dna structure makes it impossible.
Everything you are saying demonstrates that you do not understand evolution by natural selection, and your misinformation is gained from creationist websites. To demonstrate, why don't you give us a brief explanation of evolution in your own words. You can't effectively debate a theory that you do not understand. We've had this party on this sub-forum dozens of times before. It may be your first time, but it is not ours...
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I don't except evolution or the orthodox theory of "creation"
Yeah, I already know that. I asked you what you do accept as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? Do you simply think nobody knows?

Everything you've asked me to explain, you can't explain yourself and neither can scientists.
The theory of evolution explains everything I just asked you to explain, without it there is no explanation

1. How do you explain how all living things share DNA based on how closely related organisms are?
2. How do you explain how all life forms on Earth are carbon based?
3. How do you explain vestigial appendages and organs?
4. How do you explain why chickens have the genetic code to make teeth, but have no teeth?
5. How do you explain why whales and dolphins swim vertically (like mammals run on land) but all fish swim horizontally?
6. How do you explain Darwin's famous finch observations?
7. How do you explain the fact that there's never been a single instance of an older, less complex organism being above a younger, more complex organism in the different layers of strata?
8. How do you explain the power of prediction, like the example I cited earlier with tiktaalik? Scientists knew where to look, what to look for and in what age rocks they would likely find the animal in, and they did. How do you explain that?
1. All living thing share DNA based on how closely related organisms are because every living thing shares a common ancestor. If the theory of evolution were false, there would be organisms with different genetic codes or organisms who don't share DNA

2. All life forms on Earth are carbon based because all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. Again, if the theory of evolution were false, there would be living organisms on Earth based on other chemical elements

3. Vestigial appendages and organs exist because they are remnants of earlier species transitions into new species. Vestigial leg bones on whales whose ancestor ran on land, vestigial ear muscles on humans whose ancestor required them for survival from predators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

4. Chickens have the genetic code to make teeth but don't have any teeth because their ancestor did have teeth

5. Whales and dolphins swim vertically because their ancestors ran on land

6. Finch from different Islands in the Galapagos all came from the same finch, but over time and isolation from it's parent species, they evolved into completely new species of finch that could no longer reproduce with the original finch. Macroevolution right in front of your eyes, in 1832.. The same thing happened with a species of salamander in California

7. There's never been an older fossil discovered above a younger fossil because as time progresses, new layers are created by the environment, also as time progresses, complexity in organisms increases

8. The power of prediction cannot be explained without using the theory of evolution. This is one of the strongest aspects of the theory that validates it


All I am saying is, evolution is not proven, and that is a fact.
The finch's in the Galapagos are an example of evolution; 1 species evolving into a completely new species, this is a fact

To this day there is no evidence of any kind of missing link, in fact, it is proven that humans cannot reproduce with primates, yet Darwins theory says we descended from them.
Every species that has ever existed, including you and me, is a transitional species (missing link)

The earlier species of primate that man evolved from is a completely different species than modern homosapiens. Two different species can't reproduce with each other, completely consistent with what the theory of evolution states

And the fact that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed because the replication contains built-in error checking. Kind of hard to claim a horse came from a fish when their dna structure makes it impossible.
This is an elementary level understanding of the theory of evolution.

Horses don't "come from fish", horses and fish and humans and bats and trees and plants and anything that is living on this planet all share a common ancestor.

I'm not sure where you learned about evolution, or didn't, but you have a deep misunderstanding of what it actually is and how it works. You probably don't accept it because your understanding of it doesn't make any sense. I don't accept your version of evolution either because it's obviously not true. But if you take the time to actually read what it is and how it works, you will probably have a much better understanding of it and likely accept it. Like I said, there aren't many other theories in science that are as strong as the theory of evolution. It's the foundation of biology.
 
Last edited:

callitgood

Member
You are not a bible believer, but your video is from answersingenesis, a completely bias christian site infamous for mis-information. You follow science, but cannot even source your material for validity. Right. Science is based on peer review, are you familiar with the process? If you were, you wouldn't use creationist websites as sources. What I will do tonight is go through your video, look up the 'experts' that are citing this misinformation, do a few minutes of research on each, and show you how each is a fraud or laughing stock in the scientific community. Unless you'd like to do this before I get to it. Stay tuned...
Science is not based on peer review and consensus my friend.
Science is based on objective observation, evidence, experimentation and observation for testing hypotheses.
Peer review is simply exposure to scrutiny and possibly verification, something that is almost meaningless in todays political world.

Because you think some scientists are christian biased, should I discredit all of your citations coming from atheists?
 

callitgood

Member
Yeah, I already know that. I asked you what you do accept as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? Do you simply think nobody knows?



The theory of evolution explains everything I just asked you to explain, without it there is no explanation



1. All living thing share DNA based on how closely related organisms are because every living thing shares a common ancestor. If the theory of evolution were false, there would be organisms with different genetic codes or organisms who don't share DNA

2. All life forms on Earth are carbon based because all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. Again, if the theory of evolution were false, there would be living organisms on Earth based on other chemical elements

3. Vestigial appendages and organs exist because they are remnants of earlier species transitions into new species. Vestigial leg bones on whales whose ancestor ran on land, vestigial ear muscles on humans whose ancestor required them for survival from predators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

4. Chickens have the genetic code to make teeth but don't have any teeth because their ancestor did have teeth

5. Whales and dolphins swim vertically because their ancestors ran on land

6. Finch from different Islands in the Galapagos all came from the same finch, but over time and isolation from it's parent species, they evolved into completely new species of finch that could no longer reproduce with the original finch. Macroevolution right in front of your eyes, in 1832.. The same thing happened with a species of salamander in California

7. There's never been an older fossil discovered above a younger fossil because as time progresses, new layers are created by the environment, also as time progresses, complexity in organisms increases

8. The power of prediction cannot be explained without using the theory of evolution. This is one of the strongest aspects of the theory that validates it




The finch's in the Galapagos are an example of evolution; 1 species evolving into a completely new species, this is a fact



Every species that has ever existed, including you and me, is a transitional species (missing link)

The earlier species of primate that man evolved from is a completely different species than modern homosapiens. Two different species can't reproduce with each other, completely consistent with what the theory of evolution states



This is an elementary level understanding of the theory of evolution.

Horses don't "come from fish", horses and fish and humans and bats and trees and plants and anything that is living on this planet all share a common ancestor.

I'm not sure where you learned about evolution, or didn't, but you have a deep misunderstanding of what it actually is and how it works. You probably don't accept it because your understanding of it doesn't make any sense. I don't accept your version of evolution either because it's obviously not true. But if you take the time to actually read what it is and how it works, you will probably have a much better understanding of it and likely accept it. Like I said, there aren't many other theories in science that are as strong as the theory of evolution. It's the foundation of biology.
LOL Horses don't come from fish, but they have the same ancestors?

I'll take that as you have no clue what you are trying to regurgitate.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Wow, the finches of the Galapagos turned into, finches! LOL




Both different species of feline





Both different species of bird





Both different species of canine





Different species of finch

All of these animals are closely related, yet cannot procreate with each other rendering them different species and proving the validity of macroevolution

Humans and chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas are different species of primate, all closely related, yet can't procreate

Why do you so desperately want the theory of evolution to be false if you don't have any preconceived religious obstacles blocking your way to reason?
 

callitgood

Member







Both different species of feline







Both different species of bird







Both different species of canine







Different species of finch

All of these animals are closely related, yet cannot procreate with each other rendering them different species and proving the validity of macroevolution

Humans and chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas are different species of primate, all closely related, yet can't procreate

Why do you so desperately want the theory of evolution to be false if you don't have any preconceived religious obstacles blocking your way to reason?
Posting images of different species and sub-species does no prove a thing, other than you post nice pics. lol
Fact is, Darwins finches are still finches, they can interbreed my friend, that's my point.
Thank you.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member




Look how the German Shepard changed in the last 40 years, Darwin must have been right, it's evolution. LOL
1915 v. 2014



The German Shepherd Dog is also a breed that is routinely mentioned when people talk about ruined breeds; maybe because they used to be awesome. In Dogs of All Nations, the GSD is described as a medium-sized dog (25 kg /55 lb), this is a far cry from the angulated, barrel-chested, sloping back, ataxic, 85-pounders (38 kg) we are used to seeing in the conformation ring. There was a time when the GSD could clear a 2.5 meter (8.5 ft) wall; that time is long gone.



It seems incredible that at one time the Bull Terrier was a handsome, athletic dog. Somewhere along its journey to a mutated skull and thick abdomen the bull terrier also picked up a number of other maladies like supernumerary teeth and compulsive tail-chasing.



The Basset Hound has gotten lower, has suffered changes to its rear leg structure, has excessive skin, vertebra problems, droopy eyes prone to entropion and ectropion and excessively large ears.



A shorter face means a host of problems. The modern Boxer not only has a shorter face but the muzzle is slightly upturned. The boxer – like all bracecyphalic dogs – has difficulty controlling its temperature in hot weather, the inability to shed heat places limits on physical performance. It also has one of the highest cancer rates.



The English bulldog has come to symbolize all that is wrong with the dog fancy and not without good reason; they suffer from almost every possible disease. A 2004 survey by the Kennel Club found that they die at the median age of 6.25 years (n=180). There really is no such thing as a healthy bulldog. The bulldog’s monstrous proportions make them virtually incapable of mating or birthing without medical intervention.



The Dachshund used to have functional legs and necks that made sense for their size. Backs and necks have gotten longer, chest jutted forward and legs have shrunk to such proportions that there is barely any clearance between the chest and floor. The dachschund has the highest risk of any breed for intervertebral disc disease which can result in paralysis; they are also prone to achondroplastic related pathologies, PRA and problems with their legs.



The Pug is another extreme brachycephalic breed and it has all the problems associated with that trait – high blood pressure, heart problems, low oxygenation, difficulty breathing, tendency to overheat, dentition problems, and skin fold dermatitis. The highly desirable double-curl tail is actually a genetic defect, in more serious forms it leads to paralysis.



Once a noble working dog, the modern St. Bernard has been oversized, had it’s faced squished in, and bred for abundant skin. You will not see this type of dog working, they can’t handle it as they quickly overheat. The diseases include entropion, ectropion, Stockard’s paralysis, hemophilia, osteosarcoma, aphakia, fibrinogen deficiency.

http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/


Why do you so desperately want the theory of evolution to be false if you don't have any preconceived religious obstacles blocking your way to reason?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Posting images of different species and sub-species does no prove a thing, other than you post nice pics. lol
Fact is, Darwins finches are still finches, they can interbreed my friend, that's my point.
Thank you.
Different species of finch cannot breed with each other

It seems your grasp on reproduction is almost as bad as your understanding of the theory of evolution
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Because I proved you wrong, you resort to name calling?
You haven't proved anything wrong

And it's a fact that you're ignorant about evolution

I'm done wasting time replying to you. Go ahead and believe your Mr. Garrison version of evolution is how it all actually works, don't pick up a book or anything
 

callitgood

Member
You haven't proved anything wrong

And it's a fact that you're ignorant about evolution

I'm done wasting time replying to you. Go ahead and believe your Mr. Garrison version of evolution is how it all actually works, don't pick up a book or anything
Hey, no need to get pissed off, we just disagree on an issue.
But the fact is, you said Darwins finches cannot interbreed with other finches and that is blatantly incorrect., so calling me ignorant is a bit short of hilarious.
Have a nice day.
 
Top