What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

a reply to: TzarChasm

All you did you did all to yourself.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

All you did you did all to yourself.

I could have gotten more insight from a fortune cookie

a reply to: TzarChasm

Only when you understand what it says.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

Only when you understand what it says.

Most of the time this forum makes as much sense as a bingo cage full of fortune cookies. And then there's you.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't know what that's like.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't know what that's like.

Have you ever used a site called Cleverbot? It's almost amusing for the first 20 minutes or so. Back on topic, neoholographic appears to have gotten bored and wandered off in search of fresh material to try and make evolution look stupid because thats the best fighting chance for proving the creation hypothesis. Spoiler alert, it won't work. Maybe this god person should reconsider their choice of communication and pay a visit in person to clear up the confusion. You really cant blame us for being skeptical otherwise.

a reply to: TzarChasm

So much you have to complain about.

Why does anybody need to make evolution look stupid?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

So much you have to complain about.

Why does anybody need to make evolution look stupid?

You have some reading comprehension difficulty it appears. To put it mildly.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't understand. What does that have to do with evolution?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't understand. What does that have to do with evolution?

Trying to make evolution look stupid is the only way to make god look maybe kind of somewhat halfway credible.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Nobody needs to make anything look credible and no matter what people still live their lives.

There's no repeatable scientific evidence of right conditions to make something evolve and God is only for the chosen ones.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

Nobody needs to make anything look credible and no matter what people still live their lives.

There's no repeatable scientific evidence of right conditions to make something evolve and God is only for the chosen ones.

Are you sure? Because people keep posting these really amusing attempts to make creationism look viable.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Hence why, creation is what you've been partaking in since birth.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

While the first response of mine in this thread is a lesson against intoxicated posting, this one Is fact checked solid. Apologies again for the first.

Begin:

Do you really believe this statement:

Nobody needs to make anything look credible and no matter what people still live their lives.

There's no repeatable scientific evidence of right conditions to make something evolve and God is only for the chosen ones.

Chosen? Like Jews? God is only for the Jews? My methodist sister would disagree.

Anyway...

There is a PLETHORA of repeated controlled experiments in which the scientists force evolution and change the genetic code of the animal.

There is even something called "rapid evolution".
Start with this reputable article:

www.sciencedaily.com...

FSU Professor of Biological Science Kimberly Hughes and a team of researchers set out to find how this tiny tropical fish would evolve if they transplanted wild Trinidadian guppy fish from a stream with predatory fish into two-predator-free streams. Because guppies reproduce multiple times in a year, they were able to track three to four generations of the fish living in a predator-free zone.

The findings, published today in the academic journal Nature, were staggering.

By sequencing genetic material in the guppies' brains, researchers found that 135 genes evolved in response to the new environment. Most of the changes in the gene expression were internal and dealt with a fish's biological processes such as metabolism, immune function and development.

Genes changed within the timeframe of the experiment due to induced or reduced adversity. Changes in response to environment.

Here is one specifically titled, "Evidence For Rapid Evolution Speciation"

study.com...

Scientists are seeing this happen in particular in populations that are exposed to human intervention. For example, many types of insects are being exposed to insecticides. Rapid evolution is taking place that is creating new, insecticide resistant populations of organisms within just a few generations.

These people are popular right now.

www.cdc.gov...

Do you believe in the kindom of life called Monera? Unicellular organisms like bacteria? They reproduce too.

And if you try to fight their infection, they can develop resistance to antibiotics or whatever drug you are fighting them with.

I'm no scientist, or even that smart, but I am almost certain bacteria developing resistance to drugs is an example of their genetics changing in response to the right conditions.

a reply to: Degradation33

I figure genes changed from the new environment Tjernobyl created also.

Were the changes beneficial and normal in that test? Did they create a different specie like a bird from a fish for example?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

So you want them to make a pheasant out of a salmon?

I don't think that's quite how it works.

Even the walking fish split off from its waterborne cousins gradually. Many many many generations to get to that point. Perhaps depleting ocean oxygen levels caused it to need to spend progressively more time out of the water? Not "rapid" by any means. And it's so cute. I call him satirical bumper emblem.



Here is something about the walking fish of today:

en.m.wikipedia.org...



But since you brought up Chernobyl (I think) there are some species (especially the birds) that are adapting fine where Belarusian mothers had mutant Ostrich children because of the fallout.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The birds that did better stopped producing as much of a certain pigment in their feathers leading to lower absorption rates. This change is in contrast to others of its species outside radiation exclusion zones.

a reply to: Degradation33

Then what was this changing genes you were talking about?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Degradation33

I figure genes changed from the new environment Tjernobyl created also.

Were the changes beneficial and normal in that test? Did they create a different specie like a bird from a fish for example?

1. Youre confusing a rapid nuclear event that destroys cells with slow adaptation over time.


2. Chernobyl wasnt a test. It was a horrendous accident that destroyed large swaths of habitable land.

3. Your example of wanting to see a fish evolve into a bird within a generation or 2 shows that you don't understand the basics asoects of the MES nor do you hace any interest in learning about something youre so scared of. Its pathetic.

a reply to: peter vlar

Lovely. I should think about that.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Dont bother. It will hurt too much using tissue that you dont normally access or utiluze.