Evidence for Creation Video

hurray for double posts ^_^



[edit on 5/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by papabryant

No, we have not.

yes we have

Science has never witnessed the change from one species to another.

yes we have, maybe you dont udnerstand what is actually meant by this

What has been witnessed has been minor adaptiations for survival purposes

that is what evolution is silly

but its mutation not adaptation else all of them would be good, and they arnt most do nothing some are abd an some are good

if you adapt you improve, mutations are good bad an indifferent which is what we see in the lab

Germs mutate, but not into plants or single celled animals, but another form of GERM.

and when 1 germ invades another and takes over it becoming a multicellar creature that is no longer a germ it becomes?

and germ isnt a scientific term

Dogs do not evolve into cats,

we know evolution says it cant happen

petunias do not become roses,

we know evolution says it cant happen

cockroaches do not become butterflies.

we know evolution says it cant happen

Dawkins admits this in The Blind Watchmaker,

we know evolution says it cant happen

the editor of the Oxford University Guide to Natural Sciences admits it in that book -- Dennett, Gould, Onfrey, Ruse the list goes on.

we know evolution says it cant happen


so far sorry but the only thing you have disproved is any notion you understand evolution

maybe you should read and understand the blind watch maker instead of just copy pasting other peoples quote mines and fale representations of it

ive got a copy if you want to borrow it

[edit on 5/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by mytquin
It's funny...no matter how much evidence is presented, evolutionists will never change their minds...not until Christ returns, then it will be too late....

Ha, ha, ha, your emoticons are SO right. It's like, like, like, every single day Christ DOESN'T return then all those people who accept scientific truth and laugh at you in the face will be SO mad the day Christ DOES return and YOU get to laugh in their face because you are SUCH a good Christ follower. Oh, man. Funny.

No really. Precious. You are so right.

reply to post by DooRight


well were still waiting for the evidence to disprove evolution, i hope the wait isnt as long as for jesus

he said he would be back while the disciples still lived he's nearly 2000 years late ....... youd think a divine bieng could keep time

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by DooRight

 

well were still waiting for the evidence to disprove evolution, i hope the wait isnt as long as for jesus

he said he would be back while the disciples still lived he's nearly 2000 years late ....... youd think a divine bieng could keep time

Now, now. The topic isn't dumbasses and the monkeys that breed them. It's why are we who recognize science so stupid when the the clear wavering interpretation of the WORD (logos for you Greeks) is so infallible and right every single time they've been wrong about everything.

Stay on topic!

Originally posted by noobfun
so far sorry but the only thing you have disproved is any notion you understand evolution

I understand it quite well thank you, since I was required to take 3 philosophy of science classes (all A's, thank you) and 3 biology classes, including one specifically on the history of the theory of evolution (all A's, thank you). You keep on quoting the "popularist" books on evolution, while I have had to "data mine" the Lexus-Nexus database for peer-reviewed articles. Makes me wonder what your credentials are for pontificating?

maybe you should read and understand the blind watch maker instead of just copy pasting other peoples quote mines and fale representations of it

I have read it, three times in fact. That's how I know what's in it. Wrote a couple of papers where I quoted it too. Thanks for asking.

ive got a copy if you want to borrow it

[edit on 5/12/08 by noobfun]

OOOOHHHHHHHH!!! A book exchange! Since I've read Dawkins I'm not interested in him. Anything else in your library? I'll trade you a comedy book, The Evolution of Morality, by Richard Joyce for it?

(shakes head and laughs softly at noobfun as he walks away)

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I can REPEAT AND OBSERVE a ball being thrown through a window, are you really this think??? Show me one human in all of time that has seen a monkey give birth to a non monkey or a corn to sprout a whale or a green bean or a rock...

You all need to be better thinkers than this, but then you BELIEVE in evolution so it's probably not likely that you will think in scientific terms

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

I can REPEAT AND OBSERVE a ball being thrown through a window, are you really this think??? Show me one human in all of time that has seen a monkey give birth to a non monkey or a corn to sprout a whale or a green bean or a rock...

You all need to be better thinkers than this, but then you BELIEVE in evolution so it's probably not likely that you will think in scientific terms

Its worse than that Indy.

If they would think for a moment they would remember that Darwin gave the world what the definition of a "transitional species" was. And that is NOT the definition used by modern neo-Darwinists today.

Darwin knew that the fossil record would have to produce examples of transitional species, or “missing links”. Many people think animals like Archaeopteryx are transitional species, a bridge between dinosaurs and birds.

Sorry, but no dice. Archaeopteryx is a fully formed species of bird (scientists dropped the idea of Archaeopteryx being a missing link 20 years ago in peer reviewed literature, even though popular literature still calls it such). None of the species that are touted in the newspapers are transitional species, but are fully formed species. We know this because they don’t look like Thalidomide babies, which is what a transitional species would look like.

As the arm on a dinosaur like Compsognathus (the tiny dinosaur that ate the little girl in Jurassic Park 2 ) began to form into a wing it would have to pass through a stage where the arm would have been a hindrance to its survival, because it couldn’t be used to grab food or defend itself, but still wasn’t a wing – even a non functional one. It would be a walking birth defect, making it a chicken mcnugget for another dinosaur, and if evolution - or more accurately Macroevolution - were true there should be MILLIONS of these fossils.

There isn’t one anywhere on this planet. Dawkins admitted it, and so did Gould.

And this thought has occured to exactly NONE of the evolution supporters on this website.

Heheheh..... So much for the Brights.

Originally posted by papabryant
I understand it quite well thank you, since I was required to take 3 philosophy of science classes (all A's, thank you) and 3 biology classes, including one specifically on the history of the theory of evolution (all A's, thank you). You keep on quoting the "popularist" books on evolution, while I have had to "data mine" the Lexus-Nexus database for peer-reviewed articles. Makes me wonder what your credentials are for pontificating?

Dogs do not evolve into cats, petunias do not become roses, cockroaches do not become butterflies.

feel free to point me towards and scientific peer reviewed litrature that says this should be happening as a cause of evolution?

What has been witnessed has been minor adaptiations for survival purposes

Main Entry: ad·ap·ta·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌa-ˌdap-ˈtā-shən, -dəp-\
Function: noun
Date: 1610
1: the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2: adjustment to environmental conditions: as a: adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b: modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
3: something that is adapted ; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form www.merriam-webster.com...

please feel free to point me towards any peer reviewed and accepted literature that states mutations are all posative adaptions making the organism more fit, or driven purley by the enviorment it finds it self

Science has never witnessed the change from one species to another.

]

The Biological Species Concept
Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

(not applicable to A-sexual reproduction systems)

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

www.talkorigins.org...

apparently we have seen it in labs at least since 1972

or did you not mean species? did you mean genus? family? order? class? phylum? kingdom?

of couree you know the differeance and would have used the correct term



my friend you stand accused of the most heinous crime known to the scientific community

you have knowingly and willingly used misrepresentationaly language

willing ignored and denied the existance of well known scientific studies

willing misrepresented the founding principles of a theory and understanding od the term species



one thing is held above qualifications, knowledge, eye colour, length and fuzzyness of beard in science

and that is honesty!

you have willingly and knowlingly commited an act of intellectual dishoensty, in short you have lied

as such you have lost all credability that you or any term papers or qualifications or length and fuzzyness of beard or the books you say you have read would grant you



[edit on 6/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

I can REPEAT AND OBSERVE a ball being thrown through a window, are you really this think??? Show me one human in all of time that has seen a monkey give birth to a non monkey or a corn to sprout a whale or a green bean or a rock...

i cant think of any either

luckily that is nothing to do with evolution

You all need to be better thinkers than this, but then you BELIEVE in evolution so it's probably not likely that you will think in scientific terms

no we accept it based on impiracal multi supported testable predictable proven evidence

maybe you should read some of it and becoem a better thinker your self

reply to post by noobfun



noobfun,


take a break!



it's the holiday season!



Merry Christmas, my man!

Originally posted by papabryant

Sorry, but no dice. Archaeopteryx is a fully formed species of bird (scientists dropped the idea of Archaeopteryx being a missing link 20 years ago in peer reviewed literature, even though popular literature still calls it such).

for a full fledged bird can you explain why it has greater similarity with reptiles then birds?

avarian characteristics
a wishbone
feathers
a bony sternum in one of the latest specimens
hollow bones
Opposable hallux


Reptilian characteristics

Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth
rear skull attachment to the Neck
Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered
a pubic peduncle
a long, bony tail
no pygostyle
three well- developed fingers (with the same number of bones as most dinosaurs)
three well-developed metacarpal bones
unfused metacarpal bones
separate metatarsal bones
no hypotarsus
abdominal ribs


its far easier to declare it a reptile then a bird ...... more intellectual dishonesty?

next time pretend its a reptile youll look less idiotic

began to form into a wing it would have to pass through a stage where the arm would have been a hindrance to its survival, because it couldn’t be used to grab food or defend itself,

the arm is more dinosaur like then avarian in characteristics

and for holding dead prey the modifications would in no way hinder its survivability as it wouldnt interfer with its mobility either ahving a part developed wing adds some gliding ability to lengthen jumps even in a partaially formed variant, but Archaeopteryx was mistaken for Compsognathus as they are structurally very similar but NOT the same creature

were true there should be MILLIONS of these fossils.

with an average 3% fossilifiction process the number is drastically reduced, were lucky to have the millions of fossils from thousands of species we do

but there are always more in the ground, more for you to ignore




[edit on 6/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 6/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by noobfun

 

noobfun,


take a break!

it's the holiday season!

Merry Christmas, my man!

and let them spread thier lies and dishonesty with impuntiy? never

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by noobfun

 

noobfun,


take a break!

it's the holiday season!

Merry Christmas, my man!

and let them spread thier lies and dishonesty with impuntiy? never

OT's got 2 words for you

DEE...

CAFF...




Who loves ya big boy?

Originally posted by OldThinker

OT's got 2 words for you

DEE...

CAFF...

Who loves ya big boy?

hahahah if only all christians were as honest as you OT i wouldnt need decaff and could happily go about meditating on the joys of life

Originally posted by noobfun
hahahah if only all christians were as honest as you OT i wouldnt need decaff and could happily go about meditating on the joys of life

How is it that you are the judge of honesty within any man at all?

Peace

Originally posted by HIFIGUY

Originally posted by noobfun
hahahah if only all christians were as honest as you OT i wouldnt need decaff and could happily go about meditating on the joys of life

How is it that you are the judge of honesty within any man at all?

Peace

because when some one blatantly lies they become a liar

OT as far as im aware is pretty dam honest

i call it like i seem it

What if God created evolution?!?!?!?!?!?!

*break in time-space fabric*

Originally posted by noobfun
because when some one blatantly lies they become a liar

OT as far as im aware is pretty dam honest

i call it like i seem it

Oh? And your comment about Christians?

Originally posted by noobfun
hahahah if only all christians were as honest as you OT i wouldnt need decaff and could happily go about meditating on the joys of life

Your entitled to your opinion about others, but the Truth is you are not capable of knowing with absolute certainty the honesty of any individual, OT, Christian or otherwise.

When you understand that, then you will be honest with yourself.

Peace

Originally posted by HIFIGUY

Oh? And your comment about Christians?

theindependentjournal is and from papbryants from his/herresume on the sig probabily a christain also

both have and in independants case its common practice to use falsehoods intentionally

both christinas that lie, OT to the best of my knowledge doesnt, and neither do you from what i have seen of your posts

all christains is aimed at the ones caught intentionally lying, OT was held up as a comparrison model,

Your entitled to your opinion about others, but the Truth is you are not capable of knowing with absolute certainty the honesty of any individual, OT, Christian or otherwise.

When you understand that, then you will be honest with yourself.

i do understand and can only form a conclusion by thier replies and thoughts the same with you

OT could be the greatest liar in the world, but his words and actions on this forum are certainly more honest then the two above

Peace

were working on it

[edit on 7/12/08 by noobfun]