What bugs me about the theory of evolution

a reply to: TerraLiga

How about all of creation? It exists, you know and you are living in it.

Or are you unaware of a god?

a reply to: TerraLiga

Dude..

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You don’t have to answer for him clown, not that it was any sort of answer. There is absolutely no empirical proof of creation, not one iota. There is infinitely more evidence against it.

That fraud spends his days refuting scientific study with ill-educated miss-informed responses that are designed to impress people like you and deflect from the subject into his own perverted agenda. He won’t answer because there is no evidence of creation at all.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I'm not a creationist, I have an open mind, but religion is about faith, not proof, and there is no empirical proof that God does not exist so why the need for all the hating on folk that have faith in God?

a reply to: TerraLiga

There really isn't any talking to you.

Grow up bud.

I hate nobody. This cooperton chap is a fraud. I’m holding him to the very same method he holds everyone else to, and he has no answer. He’s a hypocrite.

There are two competing theories being discussed here; one is natural and tries its best to be deciphered by the scientific method, which is then peer-reviewed - even by religious scientists - and then accepted as the best description of that natural process available, until a better description is put forward and reviewed in the same way. That is science and is accepted throughout the world.

The other theory is creation. Is has no evidence at all to support it. In fact, those that claim to have evidence have been exposed as frauds and hoaxers. So yes, I do get a bit irate when I’m told by a creationist that science is incorrect and I should have the faith not to question and just believe.

I know it is difficult to understand, I don’t claim to understand how it came to be either, but not understanding something is not a reason to disbelieve. I would say that is the method of the simpleton, rather than a reasoned and open approach.

cooperton and his gang of young creationists are wilfully ignorant.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Your argument makes no sense when dealing with fish.

1st an epiglottis is unnecessary in fish.

Nice try. But the lungfish has an epiglottis:

"the African lungfish (Protopterus) and Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus) both possess, in addition to sphincteric musculature, discrete muscle fibers that effectively draw the valvular margins apart to produce active dilatation. The muscular sphincter, therefore, remains contracted when the fish is in the water, but during periods of drought the sphincter is actively opened to allow air to be gulped into the lungs by a swallowing maneuver. " source

This was the exact mechanism I said in my last post that would be necessary if a fish were to have lungs.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: dragonridr

He claims to have a double degree. Chemsitry (like me) and Neuroscience. I doubt both, based on the mistakes of the posts made. To get the Neurosci degree, you would have taken more than basic biology, yet here we have a poster who makes the mistakes of someone uneducated.

You seriously need to take biology.

I made no mistake. The lungfish needs an epiglottis to prevent from drowning. Apparently you two are the ones who "seriously need to take biology"

a reply to: TerraLiga

You believe science because there's no other hand to spank the monkey.

Creation sounds too absurd and so you stick to what science leaks through the cracks of society.

The story of many.

Are you wrong? Maybe, but most of all when you open your mouth.

a reply to: cooperton

Wrong I suggest you look at where the sphincteric muscle is. Muscles closing is the basis of most animals as muscles are used to move the food through their bodies. Look at your intestines they use muscles to process your food. Again a course in biology would help you. You argued fish need epiglottis which they dont have. Then you grab something off the internet and were clueless as to what they were talking about.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Wrong I suggest you look at where the sphincteric muscle is.

You think the paper was talking about the anal sphincter? That's rich.

By context it is clear they were referring to the laryngeal sphincter (epiglottis). The purpose of this is to prevent water form entering the lungs, it is absolutely necessary. From the same source:

"The most primitive larynx may be found in the bichir lungfish (Polypterus), which inhabits the Nile River. The larynx of this fish consists simply of a muscular sphincter to guard against the entrance of water" source

originally posted by: TerraLiga
This cooperton chap is a fraud.

You're still harping about me? I'm flattered. If you post substance I can respond to it. But your personal attacks have nothing to do with the invalidity of evolutionary theory.

a reply to: cooperton

So now you are discussing the larynx yes muscles can close this off to prevent the escape of food. In a fish this would separate their digestive tract. It's obvious your clueless so I'm done trying to teach you biology. What I will say is you were wrong about the epiglottis and that pretty much invalidates your argument.

Really bad attempt at backtracking by you. I wouldn't dig into you like I'm about to if you wouldn't have included erroneous insults in your responses...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

So now you are discussing the larynx

No, I was always discussing the larynx. That's where the epiglottis is. Don't try to come in here and act like I'm the one mistaken here. I admit my mistakes, you can too.

originally posted by: dragonridr
yes muscles can close this off to prevent the escape of food. In a fish this would separate their digestive tract.

Funny, because a couple posts ago you said the complete opposite, and mocked my intelligence because I knew that the lungfish would need an epiglottis:

originally posted by: dragonridr

You seriously need to take biology. Your argument makes no sense when dealing with fish. 1st an epiglottis is unnecessary in fish.

after immediately contradicting yourself, you are so out of context with the discussion that you think the paper I presented, which discussed the necessity of an epiglottis in the lungfish, was talking about the anal sphincter

originally posted by: dragonridr
Wrong I suggest you look at where the sphincteric muscle is

You literally can't distinguish between an air-hole and a butt-hole.

Better yet, two people gave you stars just because they want me to be wrong so bad that they too would mistake an air-hole for a butt-hole.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

There is absolutely no empirical proof of creation, not one iota. There is infinitely more evidence against it.

Where is the evidence against creation?
Show me where science has proven where and how life began.
It truly seems that many "evolutionist" only accept the theory because they believe it disproves a Creator.
It does not, nor has it ever. Yet, that seems to be all a lot of you want to talk about.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Where is the evidence for creation? Quite seriously. Or that the Abrahamic deity is the only and supreme one? Its all gnosis.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Where is the evidence for creation? Quite seriously. Or that the Abrahamic deity is the only and supreme one? Its all gnosis.

Gave you a star for proving my point yet again.

a reply to: cooperton

Wrong again and by the way you shouldn't put words in other people's mouth to attempt to win an argument.

Biology 101

What you are referring to is called the laryngotracheal groove which develops in humans to form the larynx, trachea, and lungs also develops in fishes to become the the air bladder. With them it's simply an earlier version you know that evolution stuff you dont believe in. In most higher fish species only one air sac develops. In physostomous fish the air bladder remains connected to the gut by a membranous air passage. The connection of the air passage to the gut may be placed ventrally, dorsally, or on the side of the gut tube. Some of these species can gulp air from the surface of the water and pass air into the air bladder. Notice no where did these simple lungs require an epiglottis. Now do some research and figure out why muscles would have to close off the digestive tract of the fish. Humans dont have to do this because we developed a trachea and this separates a digestive system from our respiratory

Oh one more thing the understanding of the development of lungs has only been known for about a decade. Turns out previous theories were just wrong. Scientists got lucky when it was discovered coelacanth dis not go extinct. And in fact we could look at the primitive lungs they had developed. If you truly want to learn how lungs formed I suggest reading some papers on the coelacanth.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I think that when you attribute something like that to a "god" of some kind, you, yourself, are imposing limitations. You make your god ineffectual and weak, which is actually kind of blasphemous.

Agreed, never put God in a box. Even a really big box. Never limit the unlimited, unless you want to stay in a limited consciousness.

The god in your mind is stronger than the god in your mouth.

This is why the core essential truth is so hard to articulate. Likely why we have no recorded writings from Jesus himself, because the true nature of God within us is not capable of being written on paper. That's also the fun part though, exploring the unexplored illimitable gift of God. I insist everyone takes the journey. It's simple. When you know what's right - do it, and the right things come your way.