@roxfoot Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
Evolution is testable. It is falsifiable. It does not rely on the supernatural; It s a natural process. Even if it were to be falsified, which is extremely unlikely at this point, it would only be eligible for falsification because it is a legitimate hypothesis.
Anything can have philosophical implications. Quantum mechanics has philosophical implications. That doesn't mean it isn't scientific..
Romans 1;22"thinking themselves wise they became fools" ,you can assert all the arguments you like ,even dress it up with wonderful articulation but in doing so ,you smuggle in the Christian value of logic ,as without GOD ,there is no such thing ,just random molecular and electic activity ,and without GOD you still have to believe in a thing unobserved ,and the notion of nothing becoming something,and people say Christianity is a leap of faith
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
Hello! I just wanted to say something about the whole image that christianity is a crutch :) I believe that christianity is an extremely demanding and very high standard way of living and that in its true form (as in following what the bible says) is so out of their comfort that people just ignore it. What most "christians" do is makeshift the message of the bible into "religion" and that becomes a crutch. They come and fake their love for god, sing boloney songs and maybe throw $5 in the bowl..
...But the bible says "20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister." -1John 4 verses 20-22.
@toplessflamingo 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters; yes, even their own life; such a person cannot be my disciple' ~Luke 14:26
@Matamatawaharoa Absolutely - Oxford had an alchemy class upto the 18th century and taught creationisnm uo to the 1850's^and still has a divinty class - idots like this guy will get washed away in the winds of truth like all deluded people do in time.Don't confuse charisma with knowledge.
@masala505 Actually he was an atheist in his teens. But eventually he rid of that delusion and got swept up in the real truth A.K.A Jesus Christ. Now he teaches the good news of Jesus Christ to all and even has his own ministry. Amazing how God works isnt it? :)
@stormsophia1994 Many people find god in there teens - a period when young folks are lost and looking for meaning and direction in life. Most find there way and grow to be fully functioning, mature adults. Others regretabbly get caught into religions, cults, drugs, etc, which prevent them essentially growing up - although eventually many do manage to pull themselves together to live without the need for crutches, etc. Good luck to you in finding your way - you sound like a nice guy!
@masala505 What is this "our way of life being a crutch" thing. It's complete bullcrap. We just believe that Jesus our Lord and savior and we truly find comfort in him. How is that a crutch? There is absolutely nothing I regret in giving my life to Jesus. I'm completely happy. To me, not believing in God is a crutch. A sad excuse to say there is no point in life so do whatever you want to do. And also how does letting go of your faith in God prevent you from "growing up" Thats one of the most
@stormsophia1994 The 'crutch' is a metaphorical means of supporting you in your own struggle to face your own mortality. That is the function of your religion in this case as part of the Christian belief system is life after death for believers. Those who aren't religious do not have that psychological crutch to support them in their own equivalent struggle. What you then went on to criticse, the belief that 'there is no point to life' is called Nihilism and has nothing to do with Atheism...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Well thanks for clearing that up for me. I refuse to view faith in God and life after death as a "crutch". It's a sense of acknowleding that there is someone greater than you and that your life isn't a coincidence. It's something beautiful and very real. I know that my faith in God is not in vain. I know that life after death does exist. I know God is real because he speaks to me everyday. He speaks to me through his undying love. Glory Be to His Name!
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I'm not going to let some lunatic and his twisted views of my faith sever my relationship with God(Ex: Refusing to be a Christian because they are all hypocrites). When it all comes down to it, on judgement day it's going to be me and God. He's going to judge me on how much I loved him and lived for him. God has done so much for me that I could care less about what some lunatic Christians do. I've seen him work in my life and thats enough for me.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The things that happen to people because of Christianity is pretty sad. Every one sins and falls short of Gods glory(Including Christians). But he is just to forgive us of all our sins. I honestly feel like Christianity has done more good than bad when you take it all apart. All the lives changed, restorations, etc. God does marvelous works through his people every single day. Glory be to his Name!
@stormsophia1994 There is a huge amount to respond to in what you have posted, and it is clear that you have been too indoctrinated to take notice of what i say and listen to reason.
As long as you don't let your religious beliefs affect your actions so that they have adverse effects on other people, or try and force your religion and its ideas on others, then there is little point arguing with you.
@masala505 retarded things i've ever heard. Faith brings people out of their most childish ways. Sometimes their most violent ways. The list goes on and on. Faith changes peoples lives. I just came off a retreat recently and heard people testify to this. They have truly grown up in the Lord. Those who lose faith in God are essentially lost. Sometimes they'll find their way back and sadly sometimes they won't. I guess what i'm trying to say is that you should reexamine your assumptions about
@stormsophia1994 You are also approaching the argument from a biased viewpoint. The kind of 'faith' you are talking about has also led people to fly planes into skyscrapers. The reason why 9/11 occured was because of this 'faith' which you so admire. And Christianity is equally as guilty. Look at the recent shootings in Norway by that wacko radical Christian fundamentalist. He did that because of his faith. Faith can turn normal people into frothing lunatics.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Yeah, people will do crappy things and say they did it in the name of God or whatever. I feel like people could use Christianity as a "crutch" in that sense. Saying I did this for God, so on and so forth. Acts such as this are totally against the Christian faith. It's called using the Lords name in vain. Putting Gods name on something to make it sound ok. It's something that many Christians do, but I look at it this way. My relationship with God is something between him and I
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I just wanted to say that I understand your frustration with religion. I come from Norway, so when I heard about this, I was shocked and horrified, but I don't think that christianity is to blame for that. It's only the result of people using ideologies, ideas (of any kind really) for their own gains.. It would be the same if I blamed atheism for the killing of millions of people during the cold war with Stalin and Hitler..
@olekristian91 But what I want you to think about is that, (I'm not saying that all "real" christian or religious people are good, and atheists or non-believers bad) when a christian uses evil means, he is actually acting in violation of his belief.. but an atheist doesn't have any point of reference to call any action he does "good" or "evil". Atheism doesn't have any logical point for morality.. and therefore cannot say that what the lunatic in Norway did or Hitler, was wrong..
@olekristian91 ... It is not a belief system either.There is no moral code or set of instructions from a diety associated with it, as you already said. So it is counter-intuitive to assert that Stalin killed in the name of atheism. As atheism isn't a belief system, atheists get their morals from the societies they live in, usually Western morals. "Absolute' moral acts such as what is professed in the bible include stoning to death those who work on Sundays.
@olekristian91 As you do not follow your holy book either (assuming you don't stone people who work on Sundays), you are in the same 'moral' situation as I am. We both get our morals from Western society, not the bible so I, as well as you, do have a 'point of reference' to cal any action good or evil.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 saying that Hitler was a roman catholic or that the crazy man in norway is a christian fanatic to prove christianity is evil doesn't make any sense. If I wanted to put some stain on something I didn't like, I would convince others, that I was on their side and then do something horrible.. jesus even said to look at their fruit, on the outside they are lambs but on the inside they are ravenous wolfs.. He even came up with a name for it, a hypocrite.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 oh, so when can you truly say that "okay, THIS is final, now we have all the morals and laws that is needed? "we both get our morals from western society?" that would be the same as if I would've come from India and said, "we both get our morals from eastern society, not the bible." How can you deem the other more right than the other?
@olekristian91 There are several innacuracies in your comments. Firstly Hitler was a Roman Catholic, the overwhelming majority of the evidence says so. Secondly you are approaching this discussion with the false premise that atheism is an ideology or religion.. Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism because of that very reason. Atheism is not an ideology! it is simply the rejection of the claims of the existence of a diety...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 But then we're all hypocrites, right? I guess so, almost, okay, every christian is one! As is every human being on earth. Except jesus, who showed us how to truly live and what to strive for! but a point I wanted to make (it will come in the next paragraph. I hate that we can't write longer answers here! And sorry if everything doesn't come out too good, english is not my main language, but I'm trying)
@olekristian91 Okay, here goes. On what basis can you say that Hitler was evil or wrong, or blaming God for the tsunami? Is it because you're a muslim (it is the will of allah), Hindu(karma), atheist(no morals), or naturalist(surival of the fittest, how come the animals knew when to leave the shore, and the "more evolved man" didn't know), the only rational basis on which you can say that it was wrong is the jew/christian basis that there IS a God who knows right from wrong.
@olekristian91 I think it is better if we continue the discussion with the use of PMing. Posting our replies through a series of 500 character comments is not a good way to have a discussion like this.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Hitler was a follower of Darwin and Galton, if you deny that, youre a liar. Hitler believed that the ARYANS were the supreme racial society as laid out by Darwin's book, "The Descent of Man", and Francis Galton's Eugenics theory. You know who were really Catholic though? The French resistance, the Italian resistance, the Polish resistance, as well as all those English and American Catholics who fought and killed NAZIs throughout Europe.
@particle58 Arghh! so. many. retarded. assertions. head. going. to. explode.
Firstly I never heard of Galton, secondly how can you be a follower of DARWIN!? All the man did was guess the process as to how life had become so diverse. He called it evolution by 'natural selection.' Years later with the use of genetics and paleonotology, we have found that he was right. Evolution isn't a religion or an ideology or a moral code, it is simply an explanation as to why life is so diverse...
@particle58 Also, Darwin never used the word 'Aryan.' Look it up, read his book. I don't know what crap your evangelist fundamentalist buddies have been feeding you but whatever it is it's fake. If Hitler was an atheist how come that in the first chapter of his book Mein Kampf he says that he i doing "God's work" in destroying the jewish people, how come the Fuhrer oath that every Nazi party officer had to take started with "I swear in the name of almighty God.."
@particle58 ... How come that on the belt buckle of every nazi soldier it said "God on our side" (in German ofcourse)? How come that the very first treaty made by the Nazi dictatorship was with the Vatican, exchanging politcal control of Germany for Catholic control of education and how come the Vatican celebrated the day of Hitler's birthday every year until the end of his regime? This is all historically accurate and I invite you to look it up. You will find he was a Catholic.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The belt buckles on German soldiers uniforms predate Hitler. They were issued by the Weimar Republic before the NAZI regime. On American coins it says "In God we Trust" does that make us Catholic?
@particle58 I know that. And yet the evil God-hating atheists didn't get rid of Christian belt buckles, now why is that? Maybe it is because THEY WERE CATHOLIC! And what do you have to say about my other points? Nothing, you focused on the fact that I never heard of Galton and you came up with an irrelavent piece of information about Weimar Germany that did not further your argument. Because I am right and you are wrong and i made you look like the complete lunatic fool that you are.
@particle58 "The belt buckles on German soldiers uniforms predate Hitler."
Puhlease. How desperate can you be? Read up on Nazi propaganda and you'll find it is directed at Christians - for the simple reason that essentially everyone in Europe were Christians of one stripe or another. Read Main Kampf and find Hitler going on about doing the work of the Lord when fighting against the Jews. You'll also find him praising Martin Luther's antisemitic writings.
@particle58 The hard, cold, fact of the matter is that antisemitism was completely normal among Christians pre-WWII. In fact, most of the pre-Nazi Europe had just barely gotten rid of national laws against Jewish immigration. These laws were of course originally motivated by their Christian beliefs that the Jews were the evil murderers of Jesus who conspired with Satan. In short - Nazi views of Jews were not in any way fringe beliefs among Christians.
@particle58 The fact that they are fringe views *today*, and that Christians use terms like Judeo-Christian *today* is mostly a result of both WWII propaganda demonizing the Nazis and the observations of the consequences of WWII. Pre WWII, Christians did not identify with the Jews in any significant way and the Jews had the role as the-other, a target to be painted with conspiracy theories.
@particle58 You might also be interested in the fact that The Origin of Species was on the Nazi list of forbidden books, and that Galton's theories of social darwinism in fact have nothing to do with the theory of evolution or naturalistic views. In fact, Galton's thinking is perfectly compatible with theistic views on racial purity and inherited sin, via the curse of Ham. The "science" behind it had as good quality as the "science" of phrenology and basically involves making shit up.
@simw7 Who??? You're not talking about my God. It's sad that those people where born into those conditions and sometimes they do die.... But how is that God's fault. We have more than enough resources here in America and all over the world to give those people the food and medical care they need. But guess what.... WE DONT. We give them the bare minimum. God said that there will always be poor among us. It is our job to care for them. We just can't blame God for it. Get off your lazy butt and
Well done, you can make as much money preaching to the monkeys, but at the end of the day you end with the monkeys. You can preach to manipulate the abhorrence of people who don't understand context, but you are a moron. May be you are just pissed that the scientific world does not give a damn about you. It must be very lonely to have that tiny bit of brain that it takes to manipulate the monkeys, and to know that you are with the monkeys, and that there is no exit for you.
Mcmantony is a liar and a troll that preaches evolution like a Jehovah wittiness .He called me a liar as well when he did not like the way I showed him evolution was a case study of bad science and fraud by atheist scientist with an agenda to reject God
This guy also pretends he is Tony Mcman the guitar player .what a liar
" I showed him evolution was a case study of bad science"- no, what you showed me was that you're not very bright, ignorant of basic science, utterly hopeless with simple logic, extremely dishonest and incapable of learning- good enough for a sunday school teacher I suppose.
@thehypostaticunion so pointing out your plagarism is an "evolutionist tactic"- interesting. the first pile of tripe was from bergman the second by Liu and Moran
"I have not, they are my own"- you are lying and you know perfectly well you're lying. I took several random word segements from "your" words and every time the same articles by the same authors on the same creationist website containing "your" EXACT words pops up.
post your own drivel and I'll respond. post lies I'll call you a liar
AHH Tony my boy you play the same tune to everyone you meet. You ask questions and don't like the answers. Then you ignore the points a person makes and call him a liar and plagiarist
This allows you to ignore all valid point that show your religion of evolution is merely a hoax that less people believe is true as science advances. Soon only the Zealots like yourself will have faith in evolution. Evolution will not save you from your sins my friend
no, sparky- I called him a liar and a plagarist because, like you he is a liar and a plagarist. Like you I googled his words and found the source- hence plagarism, he claimed the words were his- hence liar.
I told you where you stole the words from. bergman's drivel at creation dot com.
you claim that the cornerstone of all life science is wrong and everything you've posted here shows you've not the faintest idea what you're talking about. so I'm curious- were I to say the newtonian mechanics is bullshit then demontrate that I've no idea what force and acceleraion are I'd get laughed at as you are being laughed at now. which books by actual biologists have you read.
your character got attacked because you are dishonest. If you have to resort to cutting and pasting drivel from creationist websites without attributing the source then you are dishonest and I will call you on it. ok- and do please read what an ad hominem is.
evolution is not a just so story -dont be pathetic. I've asked which books written by actual biologists you've read- no answer. I've asked for citations to bergnman's peer reviewed work on EV......hear those crickets?
you posted words not yours without attribution. dishonesty writ large. you don't understand ad hominem. you post work of others and fail to give them credit- that is dishonest and I don't need your permission to point it out. ad hominem is where I avoid your argument by attacking your character. but you don't have an argument. post your own words I'll address them. steal others and I call you dishonest
give me citations to bergman's peer reviewed work debunking evolution.
@thehypostaticunion "An example would be some strains of the Triticale."- more dishonesty. what is it about basic integrity that's beyond you. stealing other peoples "work"- even the rubbish you steal from Creation dot com- is still theft.
since these are scientific questions would it ever occur to you that you might learn something by reading the work of, you know...umm..scientists rather than religious fanatics. ever notice that these guys NEVER submit there work to actual science journals?
@thehypostaticunion All of these conditions are well known because they are important causes of disease (including cancer) and can even cause death.
very good- you have the skills to cut AND paste. what a shame you lack the honesty to attribute a source. your source is bergman over at creation ministires international- that well known venue for scientific research....haha
posting other peoples work- even a religious crank- without attribution is stealing. add "thief" to your other failings.
He demonstrates a lack of understanding, not in offensive way of course but nonetheless this is the kind of divisiveness religious are (almost sbliminally) promoting, if you have even a basic understanding of physics the first thing you realise is that we are all made of the same particles, the same particles as the stars. So by the same vein we are related to the stars/universe. We are one with it.
you've been given examples of increases in genetic information- a term creationists use and never define; tell us what are the units of measurement? polyploidy produces an entirely new species with different traits that breeds true. gene duplication produces a copy that is free to aquire new function through mutation- the opsin example is completely understood to the precise location of the mutation and the precise wavelength sensed.
@mcmanustony Polyploidy does not produce a new species. Trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) yields humans who are mentally slow, but they are homo sapiens nonetheless. Same goes for any chromosome that is found to be polyploid. And yes, through duplication the duplicate can be mutated and gain a new function. However consider this: duplicate must have been from the 1% of DNA that is a gene, duplicate must mutate, mutation must be good, mutation cannot be bad. Simply put, it doesn't happen to our extent.
@D0KTOR7 you dont understand polyploidy. it involves duplication of the entire genome NOT just a single chromosome. Down has nothing to do with polyploidy. doubling chromosomes does produce a new species. google speciation through polyploidy and learn
"duplicate must have been from the 1% of DNA that is a gene"- 1%? in all species? it's not true anyway- pseudo genes can undergo mutation and new function
what does "doesnt' happen to our extent" mean? how do you explain opsin genes in primates?
Mcmantony will never accept any evidence that conflicts with evolution as he believes religiously and does not care if the science shows how unlikely it is that all like evolved from different species Just so you know you are wasting your time with him.as I have done
you poor fool. you waste your own time with your lies and stupidity.
if you have evidence that conflicts with evolution a nobel prize awaits....but you don't ,do you? you don't actually have the faintest clue, do you? that's why you are reduced to posting the infantile tripe you do.
thanks for your useless, redundant unoriginal book analogy. get a friend to take you to a library and you can sit watching and waiting for the books to reproduce, undergo natural selection etc.
if you are capable of comprehending my post you"ll read that the duplicated gene undergoes MUTATION and aquires new function. there is nothing speculative here- the precise mutation at the precise location is known and is identical across many species. those that lack it confirm EV
explain how the duplication of an opsin gene and the aquisistion of new fucntion is a LOSS for the organism. get it clear- you didn't sat this never occured, you claim it's a LOSS. I've asked you once and you dodged.
what do you think the ToE predicts bacteria would "turn into". mutation and selection produce new traits- not evolution according to you. WRONG according to the entire life science community- but what would they know next to an expert like you.
not upset and you could learn from what was said if you weren't so stupid,
your cliam- evolution requires an increase in DNA. wrong but nevertheless I gave you examples. I asked if DOUBLING of chromosomes is an increase in DNA- the obvious answer is yes. your answer? it's not evolution. I don't care whether or not you THINK its evolution. since you don't understand the term its irrelevant.
can you name a single biologist whose work you've read?
just to give us a laugh- can you explain how a doubing of chromosomes, duplication of an entire gene followed by mutation leading to new function or an insertion mutation is a DECREASE of anything?
you've dodged the issue several times of where the hell you get the drivel you post. give us a name of a single book on evolution you've actually read.- can you?
the other side? what is that? johnson? a right wing lawyer. berlinski? a pseudo academic. meyer? a religious nut...
why don't you run along and see if you can find someone who gives a rats toss what you think.
I understand perfectly what evolution is and what the threory to explain it claims. any gap in that knowledge is unlikely to be filled by an ignoramus sitting in his own dung reciting lies.
I don't care where you're coming from- a place of arrogance and stupidity. I'm not there nor heading in that direction.
given your utter failure to address a single issue I raised, given your inability to correct your colossal errors, given your ignorance of basic terms is science- I'll continue doing what I'm doing; learning about a great scientific achievement by reading the work of those who made that achivement without any need for advice from you. you can continue doing what you're doing; sitting in a steaming pile of your own ignorance chanting falsehoods. both sides? what's the other?
You insinuate that I do not know something or that I am untrustworthy. You accused me of not having the book which I quoted which I have read but that aside you really want to say one cannot quote someone else's work even when credit is given? You called that quote mining! Imagine if that were true, we would have to pull all published journals and student papers. I think it is you who is not processing the information presented, you assume evolution in order to prove evolution.
you've posted this exact comment before. it was tripe then and its tripe now.
I didn't insinuate I stated quite unambiguously that you are the most spectacularly dishonest individual- and one of the most arrogant and stupid- I've ever had the misfirtune to encounter.
you know nothing about the subjects you rant about and are arrogant enough to assume you've no need to learn.
@SuperTruthlover ''you assume evolution in order to prove evolution.'' Fossils are not assumed, they are facts to study. DNA is not assumed, it shows how all life is related. The fact that you are classified as a ape is a fact, not an assumption.
@thehypostaticunion "you still believe evolution has been observed in the lab"- every species obeserved has exhibited a change in alelle frequencies over time so yes- it's clear that it has been observed- as has speciation, increases in DNA, doubling of DNA, beneficial mutations etc. I suggested you learn how to use some words. you havent and continue to make a fool of yourself. facts are observed theories are not; they are tested and are confirmed or refuted. do you have refutation? thought not
what discussion? you dont know enough to have a discussion and you are too arrogant to realise the extent of your ignorance.
"nothing more than downward changes in the organism"- wrong. how is the transition from di to trichromatic vision downward.
"You still want to define evolution as mere change over time" wrong, you stupid fool. READ what I wrote. for the 4th time I correctly gave you the definition of evolution- the fact that has been observed in the lab the wild.
" hardly demonstrates that it is a proven fact"- learn what these terms mean- "fact,. theory, hypothesis"- before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
"logically fallacy appeal to authority "- WRONG- it would only be that fallact IF I'd claimed truth on the basis of authority. I didn't. I stated a fact.
is handwaving code for "someone knows I haven't a clue"
the definition covers a part of the theory. do you know the rest? obviously not.
"Evolution has not been observed in the lab"- wrong. it has many times.
"We are stuck on the observational part. " wrong. you are stuck. the scientific community have a well supported powerful theory of which you are totally ignorant
"still waiting on some proof"- no you're not. theories in science are not "proven" they are either supported by the evidence or they are not. evolution is. you don;t know how basic terms work in science.
any chance you could, without quoting anyone, actually address the information given- ERVs. HCR2, wall lizards, sickle cell trait......NONE of those is evidence for evolution I suppose. Opsin genes? the pattern of their distribution? pseaudo genes, non coding DNA.....any chance you could give us YOUR interpretation in defiance of the entire scientific community? when you get around to telling tens of thousands of scientists where they went wrong I'd like to buy a ticket.
@thehypostaticunion you love science but you dismiss anything not observable in a lab as a "belief nothing more" no, sparky- you love technology, of science you are monumentally ignorant.
evolution is a theory about biodiversty NOW- and has been observed in the lab and the wild "no matter how much you want to disbelieve it"
there nothing funny about the ignorance the haldane reference addressed. why not deal with it withoud demanding I quote his life work.
yes. I insinuate that you quote out of context to distort the views of the author. that is quote mining.
you do know the writer fully supported the ToE? not surprising since 99.98% of working biologists do accept the theory- but what would they know next to you...
can you name a few biologists whose work you've read?
"you assume evolution in order to prove evolution."- wrong try again. you've not understood or are being simply dishonest wrtiting such rubbish.
you don't understand an ad hominem. you ARE ignorant of basic ideas in the theory of evolution. an ad hominem would be attacking you to avoid dealing with your argument. but you don't know enough to present an argument and when information is presented to you you seem incapable of processing it. hence my observation that you're ignorant of the basics of the theory. is that clear enough for you?
"all of your 'evidence' does not show evolution"- I'm afraid it does. your failure to grasp is not my fault.
your idea of how science works is flawed. your GTE quote is a hypothesis. on the basis of that hypothesis evidence can be tested. if evidence contradicts the hypothesis then it gets binned- you may have heard of Haldane's "fossil rabbits in the precambrian" then again you probably haven't
the questions weren't rhetorical- star formation hasnt been observed in the lab. it's still science
@thehypostaticunion "I thought I was talking to an adult"- you are, are you? if so you're a very ungrateful one given the effort I make to fill the gigantic gaps in your knowledge- or better to encourage you to get off your backside and do so yourself. I asked if you've ever read a book written by a biologist on evolution. you never answered. I ask because the level of ignorance and confusion coupled with the chanting of creationist slogans points to one who has never made the slightest effort.
@thehypostaticunion contd. with the exception of the howler monkey whose 3rd opsin gene has a DIFFERENT mutation from that in all old world primates
why do we hypothesise gene duplication in a common ancestor? because ALL old world primates- that would be you- have a redundant sequence many bp long on the 3rd opsin matching exactly a functional sequence adjacent to the 2nd opsin gene. redundant as it is truncated and codes for nothing. if you now chant "thats not new information" you need help.
"in some cases a loss in the DNA in the organism"- much of your DNA could be lost with no effect. a deletion of one base pair can alter the sequence of amino acids coded for and lead to new function. mutation can also lead to a gain in DNA- thats why you and all old world primates see in 3 colors. an opsin gene was duplicated and a single frame mutation led to a new wavelength detected. the pattern of opsin gene elsewhere confirms evolution. new world monkeys are diurnal-
"You have to do better than to claim I am evidence"- why? it's not my responsibility to provide answers you like. you got a perfectly correct answer to your question. you are an example of evolution. your genome has been sequenced. you evolved in africa. so did I.
"Mutations and natural selection are not a mechanism for evolution"- yes they are. "nothing more than a reshuffling"- utter rubbish. gene duplication is a frequent documented phenomenon leading to new traits.
@thehypostaticunion I will try to keep this simple. you haven't a clue. sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you simply haven't the faintest idea what this theory is about
has star formation been observed in the lab? how about mountains? finch beaks?
"Micro and Macro evolution supports nothing in your case"- I've no idea what this is supposed to mean. the evidence- ALL OF IT- supports the theory of evolution as the only scientific explanation of the fact of evolution. whats your explantion?
"please give me an example of evolution"- look in a mirror. YOU are an example of evolution as am I. If you are looking for bacteria changing into giraffes or whatever then I can't help you- no one can.
WHAT do you want an example of? rapid change? ok- polyploidy in plants leads to a new different species in ONE generation. rapid speciation? Italian wall lizards. evidence for common ancestry- ERVs/ fusion in HCR2, new traits? nylonase/ lenski's ecoli. beneficial mutation? sickle cell trait...
"You tried to define evolution as change over time"- wrong. I succeeded in correctly defining evolution as a change in alelle frequencies over time. read the post and try again.
"change within a species occurs but that is not evolution"- if its heritable change then YES is is. a haircut is not evolution but a change in beak length is
"micro and macro evolution which clearly you nor I have brought up"- wrong. I brought it up to highlight your error that speciation isnt EV
I'm not the least bit confused...and the misunderstanding is all yours.
three days ago you quoted Kerkut, two days ago I asked if you had the book you quoted- you dodged the answer, accused me of changing the subject and now we have "I never quoted a book". and I"M confused?
"we defined evolution"- no, I defined evolution- the fact of evolution. you confused this with Kerkuts definition of a part of the theory of evolution. if you'd like that explained further please ask
I brought up speciation to counter your falsehood that evolution can't be tested in a lab. it can- a simple point that you managed to miss.
"not evidence for evolution"- 100% wrong. the usual creationist chant is speciation has never been observed. following "micro evolution is fine but not macro" speciation is an example of macro evolution defined to be heritable change at or above the species level.
you gave two examples of what? finches and dogs exist- your point?
I'm perfectly familiar with the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. you can fault yourelf for finding it far fetched given the evidence.
your post seemed to be saying evolution is wrong because the galapagos finches haven't evolved into dinosaurs...they're still finches???
you never answered the question about the book you quoted. tell me, have you ever actually read a book on evolution written by a biologist? dawkins? coyne? carroll? miller? anyone?
"what it is that you cannot follow here"- your incoherent post.
"The example I gave regarding Speciation is pretty straightforward"- maybe. but since neither you nor I have a clue as to what you were giving an example of....any ideas?
Dogs? again- what is your point? they were domesticate 15,000 years ago. why do you think evolution would predict anything other than dogs? what do you think Darwin was saying about the finches that was wrong?
one way you are wrong is the following- "Speciation is not evolution".
what point are you trying to make about finches? of course they are still finches. what would you expect? giraffes? what do you think evoution would predict? why?
"evolution says those mutations through natural selection should produce changes that turn them into dino's as one current belief is"- sorry, I've not the remotest idea what you're saying here. can you try again?
you are simply wrong. where is the evidence that NS and mutation is degenerative? can you cite a paper? speciation has been observed and documented many times. do you think the scientists working on this are wrong?
perfectly happy to discuss. bet tell me. you don't have that book do you? which page is this on? "many as yet unknown systems (of evolution) remain to be discovered".
you are prattling falsehoods. TofE is tested in the lab every day.
can you tell me what you think is strange about a consise exposition of a theory provided by a supporter of that theory to explain a consise exposition of the facts that theory purports to explain- provided by me. are you struggling with the notion of theory in science? theory vs fact to be explained?
short definition of evolution: change in alelle frequencies over time. this is an observed fact in every population of ever species ever observed. it is the fact of evolution.
the Theory of Evolution is an explanation of those facts- at present the only scientific explanation out there.
one thing it certainly does not predict is that an experiment on bacteria should produce something other than bacteria. please tell me where you got that idea? I'm genuinely curious.
good grief.....where do you get these mad ideas of what evolution requires? with all due respect (not much) you've not got the faintest idea of evolution or science in general. can we replicate star formation in a lab. no. therefore according to you we can't have a scientific theory of star formation. what is "the contrary" of evolution that you wrongly think unnamed experiments show? is there a contrary to atomic theory? the evidence either supports a theory or it doesnt.
"I don't really understand your phrase "I know he churns out the same yarn about lecturing a college student atheist changing the location to suit his audience" could you elaborate on that more?"
watch thunderf00t's "why do people laugh at creationists- part 29" you'll find zacharias lying about an exchange with a student at Nottingham and the same yarn in another video with the student this time at Harvard.
"Evolution teaches that single-celled animals changed by mutation and natural selection into reptiles, birds, mammals and people, over millions of years"
no. evolution involves more processes than this. your knowledge of what is observed seems to be lacking
the mindless ignorant babble about "the human enzyme" whatever that is, comes right after 3 attempts at the oldest clunker in the creationist repertoire- "en explosion in a printing press doesn't make a dictionary"- no shit sherlock! the relevance of this to modern biology is nil. books don't reproduce, dont undergo natural selection and are not subject to heritable mutation.
like I said he is lazy dishonest and/ or stupid- good enough for a world class apologist it seems.
@xMcLoven "Can you provide factual evidence that he does not know anything about the subject of evolution"- sure I can. look up his embarassing antics on James Kennedy's TV show- notice of course that despite his pretense that he has information that overturns 150 years of scientific work he goes on JesusTV, nowhere near a scientific conference!
"babble babble....Jim....babbble...the human enzyme Jim which is the building block Jim of the gene Jim which is the building block Jim of the cell"
"hard time representing the position of those that disagree with him?"- his grotesque distortion of athiesm would be a prime example. "god killers"? sounds like the outrage of a spioiled child to me
"churns out the same yarn"- do a search here and you'll find him performing the same story with the student repsonses word for word identical but the location changes. I bet my house he's lying about this- just like he lies about being a senior research fellow at oxford university.
I know he has a hard time honestly representing the postion of those who disagree with him. I know he churns out the same yarn about lecturing a college student atheist changing the location to suit his audience- I call that lying what do you call it?
I also know that he is monumentally ignorant on the subject of evolution and too stupid, lazy dishonest or some combination of the above to get off his backside and educate himself.
I don't think much of it since I, and practically ALL scientists disagree w Hoyle & Wickramasinghe's methods at arriving at this 'probability.' Here are 3 things wrong w their methodology:
(1)they equate natural selection to random shuffling
(2)all 2000 enzyms had to be hit upon at once like a cosmic slot machine
(3)life began requiring complex enzymes working in concert
All of these things are wrong, yet they presuppose them in order for their calculation to work.
hmm good question. Apart from the fact that I believe all the evidence is better explained on atheism as opposed to Theism; I was raised Christian and always felt I was praying to no one. So I guess by non-belief stems from my intuition at an early age I suppose.
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL scripture is given by inspiration from GOD and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness. Simply said...the Bible is 100% true or 100% untrue. Either you believe it all or you don't believe anything.
@shawks70 What if I believe some bits but not others, and 2 Timothy 3:16 is among the bits that I don't believe? You may be right (I don't think are of course) but your logic doesn't support your argument (technically, you have implied your conclusion in your preposition). Furthermore, If you believe that "ALL scripture is ..." does that mean you are happy to include the Tao Te Ching or the Bhagavad Gita which have equal claim to the title "scripture", or maybe even the Qur'an? Think!
@kelco93 No...Im saying all scripture in the Bible. And I don't understand how my logic doesn't support my argument. The verse doesn't say some or parts...it says ALL. Therefore, God inspired all scripture or the Bible is fake.
@shawks70 OK, maybe I didn't explain my point well enough. I think your original interpretation of the passage is more-or-less logically correct, however if 2 Tim 3:16 is false then it can be accepted that other bits may also be false without necessarily discarding the whole thing. Your logic is circular because your belief that 2 Tim 3:16 is true is based on what 2 Tim 3:16 says. Do you have any reason besides what the Bible says to believe that the Bible is more true than other scriptures?
@kelco93 As a christian, there is no reason to doubt what the Bible says is true because the Bible is the foundation of the christian faith. And yes, I think it is more true than scriptures from other religions for the simple fact that I believe if you don't have absolute faith in your beliefs (whether I agree with them or not) then what is the point in practicing that religion in the first place. Also, Christianity is not intended to be a religion but a personal relationship with our creator.
Hmm, so are you a Christian because you believe the Bible, or do you believe the Bible because you are a Christian? Or is it something more tribal, like being a loyal supporter or a football team (sorry I can't think of a better analogy), where you take on all the beliefs as a matter of solidarity?
And am I misunderstanding you, or did you really mean to say that you are able to have "absolute faith" in something even though you might not agree with it?
@kelco93 I am a christian because I believe that Jesus Christ (Yehushuah ha Messhiac) is the Son of the one true God and Creator YHWH and that He died for our sins. And yes, you are misunderstanding me. What I said is that if you don't have absolute faith in your religion then there is no point to practicing it. Whether I agree with your religion is what I should have said to be more clear. Sorry.
But if your faith is based on believing what's in the Bible - did you at least doubt the Bible before you became Christian? And what can you say to someone who has an "absolute faith" in a different religion (or no faith) that will make them consider that the Bible might be true. Or is that something that can't be proved but just has to be believed as part of being a Christian (in which case can you be a Christian and not think the Bible is true?)
@kelco93 Hmmmm...thats a tough one. I guess i can start by saying that I was raised a christian and have always believed in God. However my relationship has not always been a good one. I have gone from absolute hatred of God and christians to an agnostic attitude where I thought believing there was a God and being a good person was all I needed. I did believe the Bible was fallible but that was just a way to make myself feel better and not wanting to face the fact that I am a sinner.
@shawks70 That's a really nice from-your-heart reply, thanks. So you've never really considered that maybe there is no God, or asked yourself how you can be sure that some of the stories in the Bible weren't purely fictional? I've read that the books which are in the Bible was not finalised until about 400 years ago and before that some were in - some out depending on location and local sentiment (i.e. human judgement). So it's like the Bible arrests you for sin but you didn't ask it for ID?
@kelco93 No matter my relationship with God, I have always believed in God for the simple reason of...how did we get here? I do not believe, nor have i ever believed in evolution other than micro evolution which is simply the variations in a kind. And I didn't really understand what you meant by that last sentence.
@shawks70 Who do you know the Bible is this particular "holy word"? Why don't you believe in the apocryphal gospels that were written by early christians? Why don't you believe in the Qu'ran, which muslims say is the ABSOLUTE WORD OR GOD? Why don't you believe in the Book or Mormons, or ANY OTHER "sacred" book??
Why is the Bible you're holding in our hands is "holy word"? How are you so sure?
@Gazdo01 I don't know what other proof I need other than the word of God. And I'm not criticizing catholicism, I'm simply stating facts that it is a pagan religion and that its followers are being deceived by the papacy.
@shawks70 HOW do you know the Bible is the Word of God??? THAT'S THE QUESTION!!! Saying "The Bible says so" is NOT SUFFISENT.
On Catholicism now, it's NOT SUFFISENT to just say "pagan religion" for it to be true. It's NOT SUFFISENT to simply say "deceived by the papacy" neither.
@Gazdo01 Because 2 Timothy 3:16 says that it is. That is my whole point. That verse gives me the promise that I can rely on the Bible as the inherent word of God to base and live my life on what He deems as righteousness. The pope cannot do that because he is a man and needs the same forgiveness and mercy the rest of us do.
@Gazdo01 as far as specifics...sunday worship, easter, christmas, clergy, nuns, celibacy, polytheism, idols. All come from pagan sun worship and were all adopted into the catholic church. The pope basically took mithraism and changed some of the key names to fit with christianity.
@shawks70 What's wrong with a holy day in the week? What wrong with celebrating the Resurrection (Easter)? What's wrong with celebrating the Nativity of Christ (Christmas)? What wrong with clergy? What wrong with contemplation (nuns)? What wrong with celibacy? (All the Apostles, except for Peter, were celibates. Paul strongly encouges celibacy) Where do you get polytheism from, when the Credo starts with "I believe in ONE GOD"?? We don't have idols, because we KNOW who we worship.
@Gazdo01 Because your holy day is sunday and God specifically says to worship on the Sabbath (seventh day not the first). Because easter is a pagan day that has nothing to do with Jesus because he was Crucified on Passover. Christmas is the birthday of every cultures pagan messiah( look it up...its in the encyclopedia). Jesus was born around the end of september-beginning of october. Celebacy goes against Gods command of be fruitful and multiply.
@Gazdo01 I know because I have a calendar...they have then at a lot of stores. You should pick one up. It matters because God says it does. Commandment 4-Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor but on the seventh you shall rest (paraphrasing). It will be very important in the future. I keep using the word pagan to again make a point. The bible specifically says not to practice the ways of the heathen.
@Gazdo01 No...it was made by God. Go back and read Genesis. And it does matter because God says it matters and you nor the pope can change it. Even the catholic church knows the sabbath is on a saturday. And if all you can do is regress to vulgar language and insults I'm through debating this with you.
This is not a debate, this is a public demonstation of your endoctrination and lact of reasoning.
You are C-R-A-Z-Y and delusionned. You don't even know WHY you believe the things you believe.
My best argument is your incapacity to answer this simple question: can you imagine a potential argument that, if it was true, would make you reject your position?
The story was funny but not relevant.
lokenath123 5 days ago
Cursing, name-calling, unexplained assertions, and bullying...none of them is science.
crawhonda 2 weeks ago
@crawhonda
neither is evolution ,its philosophy
roxfoot 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roxfoot Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 6 days ago
@roxfoot
Evolution is testable. It is falsifiable. It does not rely on the supernatural; It s a natural process. Even if it were to be falsified, which is extremely unlikely at this point, it would only be eligible for falsification because it is a legitimate hypothesis.
Anything can have philosophical implications. Quantum mechanics has philosophical implications. That doesn't mean it isn't scientific..
UpoundBUTTS 4 days ago
@UpoundBUTTS
Romans 1;22"thinking themselves wise they became fools" ,you can assert all the arguments you like ,even dress it up with wonderful articulation but in doing so ,you smuggle in the Christian value of logic ,as without GOD ,there is no such thing ,just random molecular and electic activity ,and without GOD you still have to believe in a thing unobserved ,and the notion of nothing becoming something,and people say Christianity is a leap of faith
roxfoot 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
EXALTEDDIRT 3 weeks ago
lol funny
KingDcome11 2 months ago
funny punchline....IDIOTIC point
jcandnp 3 months ago
Religious car salsemen suck ass.....
odinata 3 months ago
Your mother is a humorous illustration.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
Hello! I just wanted to say something about the whole image that christianity is a crutch :) I believe that christianity is an extremely demanding and very high standard way of living and that in its true form (as in following what the bible says) is so out of their comfort that people just ignore it. What most "christians" do is makeshift the message of the bible into "religion" and that becomes a crutch. They come and fake their love for god, sing boloney songs and maybe throw $5 in the bowl..
toplessflamingo 3 months ago
@toplessflamingo put your top back on!
afatdutch 3 months ago
...But the bible says "20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister." -1John 4 verses 20-22.
toplessflamingo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toplessflamingo 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters; yes, even their own life; such a person cannot be my disciple' ~Luke 14:26
GrendelNin 3 months ago
Comment removed
toplessflamingo 3 months ago
Ignorant fool.
masala505 3 months ago
@masala505 Do you called someone who is a lecturer at Havard and Oxford Unversity an ignorant fool?
Matamatawaharoa 3 months ago
@Matamatawaharoa Absolutely - Oxford had an alchemy class upto the 18th century and taught creationisnm uo to the 1850's^and still has a divinty class - idots like this guy will get washed away in the winds of truth like all deluded people do in time.Don't confuse charisma with knowledge.
masala505 3 months ago
@masala505 Actually he was an atheist in his teens. But eventually he rid of that delusion and got swept up in the real truth A.K.A Jesus Christ. Now he teaches the good news of Jesus Christ to all and even has his own ministry. Amazing how God works isnt it? :)
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@stormsophia1994 Many people find god in there teens - a period when young folks are lost and looking for meaning and direction in life. Most find there way and grow to be fully functioning, mature adults. Others regretabbly get caught into religions, cults, drugs, etc, which prevent them essentially growing up - although eventually many do manage to pull themselves together to live without the need for crutches, etc. Good luck to you in finding your way - you sound like a nice guy!
masala505 3 months ago
@masala505 What is this "our way of life being a crutch" thing. It's complete bullcrap. We just believe that Jesus our Lord and savior and we truly find comfort in him. How is that a crutch? There is absolutely nothing I regret in giving my life to Jesus. I'm completely happy. To me, not believing in God is a crutch. A sad excuse to say there is no point in life so do whatever you want to do. And also how does letting go of your faith in God prevent you from "growing up" Thats one of the most
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@stormsophia1994 The 'crutch' is a metaphorical means of supporting you in your own struggle to face your own mortality. That is the function of your religion in this case as part of the Christian belief system is life after death for believers. Those who aren't religious do not have that psychological crutch to support them in their own equivalent struggle. What you then went on to criticse, the belief that 'there is no point to life' is called Nihilism and has nothing to do with Atheism...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Well thanks for clearing that up for me. I refuse to view faith in God and life after death as a "crutch". It's a sense of acknowleding that there is someone greater than you and that your life isn't a coincidence. It's something beautiful and very real. I know that my faith in God is not in vain. I know that life after death does exist. I know God is real because he speaks to me everyday. He speaks to me through his undying love. Glory Be to His Name!
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I'm not going to let some lunatic and his twisted views of my faith sever my relationship with God(Ex: Refusing to be a Christian because they are all hypocrites). When it all comes down to it, on judgement day it's going to be me and God. He's going to judge me on how much I loved him and lived for him. God has done so much for me that I could care less about what some lunatic Christians do. I've seen him work in my life and thats enough for me.
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The things that happen to people because of Christianity is pretty sad. Every one sins and falls short of Gods glory(Including Christians). But he is just to forgive us of all our sins. I honestly feel like Christianity has done more good than bad when you take it all apart. All the lives changed, restorations, etc. God does marvelous works through his people every single day. Glory be to his Name!
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@stormsophia1994 There is a huge amount to respond to in what you have posted, and it is clear that you have been too indoctrinated to take notice of what i say and listen to reason.
As long as you don't let your religious beliefs affect your actions so that they have adverse effects on other people, or try and force your religion and its ideas on others, then there is little point arguing with you.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@masala505 retarded things i've ever heard. Faith brings people out of their most childish ways. Sometimes their most violent ways. The list goes on and on. Faith changes peoples lives. I just came off a retreat recently and heard people testify to this. They have truly grown up in the Lord. Those who lose faith in God are essentially lost. Sometimes they'll find their way back and sadly sometimes they won't. I guess what i'm trying to say is that you should reexamine your assumptions about
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@stormsophia1994 You are also approaching the argument from a biased viewpoint. The kind of 'faith' you are talking about has also led people to fly planes into skyscrapers. The reason why 9/11 occured was because of this 'faith' which you so admire. And Christianity is equally as guilty. Look at the recent shootings in Norway by that wacko radical Christian fundamentalist. He did that because of his faith. Faith can turn normal people into frothing lunatics.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Yeah, people will do crappy things and say they did it in the name of God or whatever. I feel like people could use Christianity as a "crutch" in that sense. Saying I did this for God, so on and so forth. Acts such as this are totally against the Christian faith. It's called using the Lords name in vain. Putting Gods name on something to make it sound ok. It's something that many Christians do, but I look at it this way. My relationship with God is something between him and I
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I just wanted to say that I understand your frustration with religion. I come from Norway, so when I heard about this, I was shocked and horrified, but I don't think that christianity is to blame for that. It's only the result of people using ideologies, ideas (of any kind really) for their own gains.. It would be the same if I blamed atheism for the killing of millions of people during the cold war with Stalin and Hitler..
olekristian91 3 months ago
@olekristian91 But what I want you to think about is that, (I'm not saying that all "real" christian or religious people are good, and atheists or non-believers bad) when a christian uses evil means, he is actually acting in violation of his belief.. but an atheist doesn't have any point of reference to call any action he does "good" or "evil". Atheism doesn't have any logical point for morality.. and therefore cannot say that what the lunatic in Norway did or Hitler, was wrong..
olekristian91 3 months ago
@olekristian91 oops sorry I missed your second comment, I will be replying again with that in mind...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@olekristian91 ... It is not a belief system either.There is no moral code or set of instructions from a diety associated with it, as you already said. So it is counter-intuitive to assert that Stalin killed in the name of atheism. As atheism isn't a belief system, atheists get their morals from the societies they live in, usually Western morals. "Absolute' moral acts such as what is professed in the bible include stoning to death those who work on Sundays.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@olekristian91 As you do not follow your holy book either (assuming you don't stone people who work on Sundays), you are in the same 'moral' situation as I am. We both get our morals from Western society, not the bible so I, as well as you, do have a 'point of reference' to cal any action good or evil.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 saying that Hitler was a roman catholic or that the crazy man in norway is a christian fanatic to prove christianity is evil doesn't make any sense. If I wanted to put some stain on something I didn't like, I would convince others, that I was on their side and then do something horrible.. jesus even said to look at their fruit, on the outside they are lambs but on the inside they are ravenous wolfs.. He even came up with a name for it, a hypocrite.
olekristian91 3 months ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 oh, so when can you truly say that "okay, THIS is final, now we have all the morals and laws that is needed? "we both get our morals from western society?" that would be the same as if I would've come from India and said, "we both get our morals from eastern society, not the bible." How can you deem the other more right than the other?
olekristian91 3 months ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@olekristian91 There are several innacuracies in your comments. Firstly Hitler was a Roman Catholic, the overwhelming majority of the evidence says so. Secondly you are approaching this discussion with the false premise that atheism is an ideology or religion.. Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism because of that very reason. Atheism is not an ideology! it is simply the rejection of the claims of the existence of a diety...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 But then we're all hypocrites, right? I guess so, almost, okay, every christian is one! As is every human being on earth. Except jesus, who showed us how to truly live and what to strive for! but a point I wanted to make (it will come in the next paragraph. I hate that we can't write longer answers here! And sorry if everything doesn't come out too good, english is not my main language, but I'm trying)
olekristian91 3 months ago
@olekristian91 Okay, here goes. On what basis can you say that Hitler was evil or wrong, or blaming God for the tsunami? Is it because you're a muslim (it is the will of allah), Hindu(karma), atheist(no morals), or naturalist(surival of the fittest, how come the animals knew when to leave the shore, and the "more evolved man" didn't know), the only rational basis on which you can say that it was wrong is the jew/christian basis that there IS a God who knows right from wrong.
olekristian91 3 months ago
@olekristian91 I think it is better if we continue the discussion with the use of PMing. Posting our replies through a series of 500 character comments is not a good way to have a discussion like this.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Hitler was a follower of Darwin and Galton, if you deny that, youre a liar. Hitler believed that the ARYANS were the supreme racial society as laid out by Darwin's book, "The Descent of Man", and Francis Galton's Eugenics theory. You know who were really Catholic though? The French resistance, the Italian resistance, the Polish resistance, as well as all those English and American Catholics who fought and killed NAZIs throughout Europe.
particle58 3 months ago
@particle58 Arghh! so. many. retarded. assertions. head. going. to. explode.
Firstly I never heard of Galton, secondly how can you be a follower of DARWIN!? All the man did was guess the process as to how life had become so diverse. He called it evolution by 'natural selection.' Years later with the use of genetics and paleonotology, we have found that he was right. Evolution isn't a religion or an ideology or a moral code, it is simply an explanation as to why life is so diverse...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Youve never heard of Francis Galton and Im the one who needs to do more research??? I dont know what to say, Im speechless.
particle58 3 months ago
@particle58 Also, Darwin never used the word 'Aryan.' Look it up, read his book. I don't know what crap your evangelist fundamentalist buddies have been feeding you but whatever it is it's fake. If Hitler was an atheist how come that in the first chapter of his book Mein Kampf he says that he i doing "God's work" in destroying the jewish people, how come the Fuhrer oath that every Nazi party officer had to take started with "I swear in the name of almighty God.."
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@particle58 ... How come that on the belt buckle of every nazi soldier it said "God on our side" (in German ofcourse)? How come that the very first treaty made by the Nazi dictatorship was with the Vatican, exchanging politcal control of Germany for Catholic control of education and how come the Vatican celebrated the day of Hitler's birthday every year until the end of his regime? This is all historically accurate and I invite you to look it up. You will find he was a Catholic.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 The belt buckles on German soldiers uniforms predate Hitler. They were issued by the Weimar Republic before the NAZI regime. On American coins it says "In God we Trust" does that make us Catholic?
particle58 3 months ago
@particle58 I know that. And yet the evil God-hating atheists didn't get rid of Christian belt buckles, now why is that? Maybe it is because THEY WERE CATHOLIC! And what do you have to say about my other points? Nothing, you focused on the fact that I never heard of Galton and you came up with an irrelavent piece of information about Weimar Germany that did not further your argument. Because I am right and you are wrong and i made you look like the complete lunatic fool that you are.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@particle58 "The belt buckles on German soldiers uniforms predate Hitler."
Puhlease. How desperate can you be? Read up on Nazi propaganda and you'll find it is directed at Christians - for the simple reason that essentially everyone in Europe were Christians of one stripe or another. Read Main Kampf and find Hitler going on about doing the work of the Lord when fighting against the Jews. You'll also find him praising Martin Luther's antisemitic writings.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@particle58 The hard, cold, fact of the matter is that antisemitism was completely normal among Christians pre-WWII. In fact, most of the pre-Nazi Europe had just barely gotten rid of national laws against Jewish immigration. These laws were of course originally motivated by their Christian beliefs that the Jews were the evil murderers of Jesus who conspired with Satan. In short - Nazi views of Jews were not in any way fringe beliefs among Christians.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@particle58 The fact that they are fringe views *today*, and that Christians use terms like Judeo-Christian *today* is mostly a result of both WWII propaganda demonizing the Nazis and the observations of the consequences of WWII. Pre WWII, Christians did not identify with the Jews in any significant way and the Jews had the role as the-other, a target to be painted with conspiracy theories.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@particle58 You might also be interested in the fact that The Origin of Species was on the Nazi list of forbidden books, and that Galton's theories of social darwinism in fact have nothing to do with the theory of evolution or naturalistic views. In fact, Galton's thinking is perfectly compatible with theistic views on racial purity and inherited sin, via the curse of Ham. The "science" behind it had as good quality as the "science" of phrenology and basically involves making shit up.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@masala505 About faith in God. He does wondrous works in people's lives. Glory be to his name.
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@stormsophia1994 and he kills million of children in 3rd world countries,..so much for a wonderful god.
simw7 3 months ago
@simw7 Who??? You're not talking about my God. It's sad that those people where born into those conditions and sometimes they do die.... But how is that God's fault. We have more than enough resources here in America and all over the world to give those people the food and medical care they need. But guess what.... WE DONT. We give them the bare minimum. God said that there will always be poor among us. It is our job to care for them. We just can't blame God for it. Get off your lazy butt and
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
@simw7 and do something!!! (And that goes for the entire world) GOD BLESS!!!
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well done, you can make as much money preaching to the monkeys, but at the end of the day you end with the monkeys. You can preach to manipulate the abhorrence of people who don't understand context, but you are a moron. May be you are just pissed that the scientific world does not give a damn about you. It must be very lonely to have that tiny bit of brain that it takes to manipulate the monkeys, and to know that you are with the monkeys, and that there is no exit for you.
silentdreamers 4 months ago
Comment removed
silentdreamers 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch this YouTube ( Where are YOU Going to after death?! )
(See why corruption Aslam Yusuf Estes )
(See why Aslam Abdul Raheem assigned )
(Jesus Christ in Islam)
(why she became muslim)
(Christian Professor converts to Islam )
(European Scientist converts to Islam)
(A Compilation of Converts to Islam )
(Anatomy : Scientist converted to islam after reading Quran)
(compilation of converts to islam New Muslims from different places)
MRafh979 4 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
Mcmantony is a liar and a troll that preaches evolution like a Jehovah wittiness .He called me a liar as well when he did not like the way I showed him evolution was a case study of bad science and fraud by atheist scientist with an agenda to reject God
This guy also pretends he is Tony Mcman the guitar player .what a liar
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
@SuperTruthlover
" I showed him evolution was a case study of bad science"- no, what you showed me was that you're not very bright, ignorant of basic science, utterly hopeless with simple logic, extremely dishonest and incapable of learning- good enough for a sunday school teacher I suppose.
ever learn what an ERV is?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thehypostaticunion
what part of my post did you not understand?
If you have a clue what is being presented then say it in your own words and I'll respond.
so you admit you were lying then. that's good because it was a pretty stupid lie and you got caught.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion so pointing out your plagarism is an "evolutionist tactic"- interesting. the first pile of tripe was from bergman the second by Liu and Moran
"I have not, they are my own"- you are lying and you know perfectly well you're lying. I took several random word segements from "your" words and every time the same articles by the same authors on the same creationist website containing "your" EXACT words pops up.
post your own drivel and I'll respond. post lies I'll call you a liar
mcmanustony 5 months ago in playlist RZIM
@mcmanustony
AHH Tony my boy you play the same tune to everyone you meet. You ask questions and don't like the answers. Then you ignore the points a person makes and call him a liar and plagiarist
This allows you to ignore all valid point that show your religion of evolution is merely a hoax that less people believe is true as science advances. Soon only the Zealots like yourself will have faith in evolution. Evolution will not save you from your sins my friend
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
@SuperTruthlover
no, sparky- I called him a liar and a plagarist because, like you he is a liar and a plagarist. Like you I googled his words and found the source- hence plagarism, he claimed the words were his- hence liar.
sorry if this is too advanced for you.
mcmanustony 5 months ago in playlist ravi zacharias
@thehypostaticunion
I told you where you stole the words from. bergman's drivel at creation dot com.
you claim that the cornerstone of all life science is wrong and everything you've posted here shows you've not the faintest idea what you're talking about. so I'm curious- were I to say the newtonian mechanics is bullshit then demontrate that I've no idea what force and acceleraion are I'd get laughed at as you are being laughed at now. which books by actual biologists have you read.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
your character got attacked because you are dishonest. If you have to resort to cutting and pasting drivel from creationist websites without attributing the source then you are dishonest and I will call you on it. ok- and do please read what an ad hominem is.
evolution is not a just so story -dont be pathetic. I've asked which books written by actual biologists you've read- no answer. I've asked for citations to bergnman's peer reviewed work on EV......hear those crickets?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
you posted words not yours without attribution. dishonesty writ large. you don't understand ad hominem. you post work of others and fail to give them credit- that is dishonest and I don't need your permission to point it out. ad hominem is where I avoid your argument by attacking your character. but you don't have an argument. post your own words I'll address them. steal others and I call you dishonest
give me citations to bergman's peer reviewed work debunking evolution.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion "An example would be some strains of the Triticale."- more dishonesty. what is it about basic integrity that's beyond you. stealing other peoples "work"- even the rubbish you steal from Creation dot com- is still theft.
since these are scientific questions would it ever occur to you that you might learn something by reading the work of, you know...umm..scientists rather than religious fanatics. ever notice that these guys NEVER submit there work to actual science journals?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion All of these conditions are well known because they are important causes of disease (including cancer) and can even cause death.
very good- you have the skills to cut AND paste. what a shame you lack the honesty to attribute a source. your source is bergman over at creation ministires international- that well known venue for scientific research....haha
posting other peoples work- even a religious crank- without attribution is stealing. add "thief" to your other failings.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
He demonstrates a lack of understanding, not in offensive way of course but nonetheless this is the kind of divisiveness religious are (almost sbliminally) promoting, if you have even a basic understanding of physics the first thing you realise is that we are all made of the same particles, the same particles as the stars. So by the same vein we are related to the stars/universe. We are one with it.
mehico33 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion single to multi cell has been observed.
you've been given examples of increases in genetic information- a term creationists use and never define; tell us what are the units of measurement? polyploidy produces an entirely new species with different traits that breeds true. gene duplication produces a copy that is free to aquire new function through mutation- the opsin example is completely understood to the precise location of the mutation and the precise wavelength sensed.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony Polyploidy does not produce a new species. Trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) yields humans who are mentally slow, but they are homo sapiens nonetheless. Same goes for any chromosome that is found to be polyploid. And yes, through duplication the duplicate can be mutated and gain a new function. However consider this: duplicate must have been from the 1% of DNA that is a gene, duplicate must mutate, mutation must be good, mutation cannot be bad. Simply put, it doesn't happen to our extent.
D0KTOR7 5 months ago
@D0KTOR7 you dont understand polyploidy. it involves duplication of the entire genome NOT just a single chromosome. Down has nothing to do with polyploidy. doubling chromosomes does produce a new species. google speciation through polyploidy and learn
"duplicate must have been from the 1% of DNA that is a gene"- 1%? in all species? it's not true anyway- pseudo genes can undergo mutation and new function
what does "doesnt' happen to our extent" mean? how do you explain opsin genes in primates?
mcmanustony 5 months ago in playlist RZIM
@D0KTOR7
Mcmantony will never accept any evidence that conflicts with evolution as he believes religiously and does not care if the science shows how unlikely it is that all like evolved from different species Just so you know you are wasting your time with him.as I have done
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
@SuperTruthlover
you poor fool. you waste your own time with your lies and stupidity.
if you have evidence that conflicts with evolution a nobel prize awaits....but you don't ,do you? you don't actually have the faintest clue, do you? that's why you are reduced to posting the infantile tripe you do.
grow up.
mcmanustony 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover
any luck in finding ANY evidence against evolution? any idea what evolution is? any closer to engaging in ideas like an adult?
thought not.
mcmanustony 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover What evidence would prove evolution to you? Hmmmm?
Nothing?
Then who is brainwashed?
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz
What evidence would prove evolution to you?
I believe in evolution among species my mean spirited friend
There is no reason to get nasty is there?
I mean men of science like me can disagree without insults I would hope
Show me a missing link or two and I will be willing to beleive one species comes from another.
I don't mean flys BTW
Show me where humans evolved from. I would love to see it
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover These are some missing links, Species that possess transitional features: Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz
all your links are false
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
thanks for your useless, redundant unoriginal book analogy. get a friend to take you to a library and you can sit watching and waiting for the books to reproduce, undergo natural selection etc.
if you are capable of comprehending my post you"ll read that the duplicated gene undergoes MUTATION and aquires new function. there is nothing speculative here- the precise mutation at the precise location is known and is identical across many species. those that lack it confirm EV
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
explain how the duplication of an opsin gene and the aquisistion of new fucntion is a LOSS for the organism. get it clear- you didn't sat this never occured, you claim it's a LOSS. I've asked you once and you dodged.
what do you think the ToE predicts bacteria would "turn into". mutation and selection produce new traits- not evolution according to you. WRONG according to the entire life science community- but what would they know next to an expert like you.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
not upset and you could learn from what was said if you weren't so stupid,
your cliam- evolution requires an increase in DNA. wrong but nevertheless I gave you examples. I asked if DOUBLING of chromosomes is an increase in DNA- the obvious answer is yes. your answer? it's not evolution. I don't care whether or not you THINK its evolution. since you don't understand the term its irrelevant.
can you name a single biologist whose work you've read?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
just to give us a laugh- can you explain how a doubing of chromosomes, duplication of an entire gene followed by mutation leading to new function or an insertion mutation is a DECREASE of anything?
you've dodged the issue several times of where the hell you get the drivel you post. give us a name of a single book on evolution you've actually read.- can you?
the other side? what is that? johnson? a right wing lawyer. berlinski? a pseudo academic. meyer? a religious nut...
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
why don't you run along and see if you can find someone who gives a rats toss what you think.
I understand perfectly what evolution is and what the threory to explain it claims. any gap in that knowledge is unlikely to be filled by an ignoramus sitting in his own dung reciting lies.
I don't care where you're coming from- a place of arrogance and stupidity. I'm not there nor heading in that direction.
you know damn all about science.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
given your utter failure to address a single issue I raised, given your inability to correct your colossal errors, given your ignorance of basic terms is science- I'll continue doing what I'm doing; learning about a great scientific achievement by reading the work of those who made that achivement without any need for advice from you. you can continue doing what you're doing; sitting in a steaming pile of your own ignorance chanting falsehoods. both sides? what's the other?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony
You insinuate that I do not know something or that I am untrustworthy. You accused me of not having the book which I quoted which I have read but that aside you really want to say one cannot quote someone else's work even when credit is given? You called that quote mining! Imagine if that were true, we would have to pull all published journals and student papers. I think it is you who is not processing the information presented, you assume evolution in order to prove evolution.
SuperTruthlover 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover
you've posted this exact comment before. it was tripe then and its tripe now.
I didn't insinuate I stated quite unambiguously that you are the most spectacularly dishonest individual- and one of the most arrogant and stupid- I've ever had the misfirtune to encounter.
you know nothing about the subjects you rant about and are arrogant enough to assume you've no need to learn.
ever find out what an ERV is?
mcmanustony 4 months ago
@SuperTruthlover ''you assume evolution in order to prove evolution.'' Fossils are not assumed, they are facts to study. DNA is not assumed, it shows how all life is related. The fact that you are classified as a ape is a fact, not an assumption.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@thehypostaticunion "you still believe evolution has been observed in the lab"- every species obeserved has exhibited a change in alelle frequencies over time so yes- it's clear that it has been observed- as has speciation, increases in DNA, doubling of DNA, beneficial mutations etc. I suggested you learn how to use some words. you havent and continue to make a fool of yourself. facts are observed theories are not; they are tested and are confirmed or refuted. do you have refutation? thought not
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
what discussion? you dont know enough to have a discussion and you are too arrogant to realise the extent of your ignorance.
"nothing more than downward changes in the organism"- wrong. how is the transition from di to trichromatic vision downward.
"You still want to define evolution as mere change over time" wrong, you stupid fool. READ what I wrote. for the 4th time I correctly gave you the definition of evolution- the fact that has been observed in the lab the wild.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
" hardly demonstrates that it is a proven fact"- learn what these terms mean- "fact,. theory, hypothesis"- before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
"logically fallacy appeal to authority "- WRONG- it would only be that fallact IF I'd claimed truth on the basis of authority. I didn't. I stated a fact.
is handwaving code for "someone knows I haven't a clue"
the definition covers a part of the theory. do you know the rest? obviously not.
any chance of naming a book?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion brace yourself.
"Evolution has not been observed in the lab"- wrong. it has many times.
"We are stuck on the observational part. " wrong. you are stuck. the scientific community have a well supported powerful theory of which you are totally ignorant
"still waiting on some proof"- no you're not. theories in science are not "proven" they are either supported by the evidence or they are not. evolution is. you don;t know how basic terms work in science.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
microevolution vs. macroevolution...what do you all say?
richinchrist1 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
any chance you could, without quoting anyone, actually address the information given- ERVs. HCR2, wall lizards, sickle cell trait......NONE of those is evidence for evolution I suppose. Opsin genes? the pattern of their distribution? pseaudo genes, non coding DNA.....any chance you could give us YOUR interpretation in defiance of the entire scientific community? when you get around to telling tens of thousands of scientists where they went wrong I'd like to buy a ticket.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion you love science but you dismiss anything not observable in a lab as a "belief nothing more" no, sparky- you love technology, of science you are monumentally ignorant.
evolution is a theory about biodiversty NOW- and has been observed in the lab and the wild "no matter how much you want to disbelieve it"
there nothing funny about the ignorance the haldane reference addressed. why not deal with it withoud demanding I quote his life work.
where does the evidence lead you?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
yes. I insinuate that you quote out of context to distort the views of the author. that is quote mining.
you do know the writer fully supported the ToE? not surprising since 99.98% of working biologists do accept the theory- but what would they know next to you...
can you name a few biologists whose work you've read?
"you assume evolution in order to prove evolution."- wrong try again. you've not understood or are being simply dishonest wrtiting such rubbish.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
you don't understand an ad hominem. you ARE ignorant of basic ideas in the theory of evolution. an ad hominem would be attacking you to avoid dealing with your argument. but you don't know enough to present an argument and when information is presented to you you seem incapable of processing it. hence my observation that you're ignorant of the basics of the theory. is that clear enough for you?
could you name some of the books you've read?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
"all of your 'evidence' does not show evolution"- I'm afraid it does. your failure to grasp is not my fault.
your idea of how science works is flawed. your GTE quote is a hypothesis. on the basis of that hypothesis evidence can be tested. if evidence contradicts the hypothesis then it gets binned- you may have heard of Haldane's "fossil rabbits in the precambrian" then again you probably haven't
the questions weren't rhetorical- star formation hasnt been observed in the lab. it's still science
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion "I thought I was talking to an adult"- you are, are you? if so you're a very ungrateful one given the effort I make to fill the gigantic gaps in your knowledge- or better to encourage you to get off your backside and do so yourself. I asked if you've ever read a book written by a biologist on evolution. you never answered. I ask because the level of ignorance and confusion coupled with the chanting of creationist slogans points to one who has never made the slightest effort.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion contd. with the exception of the howler monkey whose 3rd opsin gene has a DIFFERENT mutation from that in all old world primates
why do we hypothesise gene duplication in a common ancestor? because ALL old world primates- that would be you- have a redundant sequence many bp long on the 3rd opsin matching exactly a functional sequence adjacent to the 2nd opsin gene. redundant as it is truncated and codes for nothing. if you now chant "thats not new information" you need help.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
"in some cases a loss in the DNA in the organism"- much of your DNA could be lost with no effect. a deletion of one base pair can alter the sequence of amino acids coded for and lead to new function. mutation can also lead to a gain in DNA- thats why you and all old world primates see in 3 colors. an opsin gene was duplicated and a single frame mutation led to a new wavelength detected. the pattern of opsin gene elsewhere confirms evolution. new world monkeys are diurnal-
mcmanustony 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thehypostaticunion
"You have to do better than to claim I am evidence"- why? it's not my responsibility to provide answers you like. you got a perfectly correct answer to your question. you are an example of evolution. your genome has been sequenced. you evolved in africa. so did I.
"Mutations and natural selection are not a mechanism for evolution"- yes they are. "nothing more than a reshuffling"- utter rubbish. gene duplication is a frequent documented phenomenon leading to new traits.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion I will try to keep this simple. you haven't a clue. sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you simply haven't the faintest idea what this theory is about
has star formation been observed in the lab? how about mountains? finch beaks?
"Micro and Macro evolution supports nothing in your case"- I've no idea what this is supposed to mean. the evidence- ALL OF IT- supports the theory of evolution as the only scientific explanation of the fact of evolution. whats your explantion?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
"please give me an example of evolution"- look in a mirror. YOU are an example of evolution as am I. If you are looking for bacteria changing into giraffes or whatever then I can't help you- no one can.
WHAT do you want an example of? rapid change? ok- polyploidy in plants leads to a new different species in ONE generation. rapid speciation? Italian wall lizards. evidence for common ancestry- ERVs/ fusion in HCR2, new traits? nylonase/ lenski's ecoli. beneficial mutation? sickle cell trait...
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
"You tried to define evolution as change over time"- wrong. I succeeded in correctly defining evolution as a change in alelle frequencies over time. read the post and try again.
"change within a species occurs but that is not evolution"- if its heritable change then YES is is. a haircut is not evolution but a change in beak length is
"micro and macro evolution which clearly you nor I have brought up"- wrong. I brought it up to highlight your error that speciation isnt EV
mcmanustony 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thehypostaticunion
I'm not the least bit confused...and the misunderstanding is all yours.
three days ago you quoted Kerkut, two days ago I asked if you had the book you quoted- you dodged the answer, accused me of changing the subject and now we have "I never quoted a book". and I"M confused?
"we defined evolution"- no, I defined evolution- the fact of evolution. you confused this with Kerkuts definition of a part of the theory of evolution. if you'd like that explained further please ask
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
I brought up speciation to counter your falsehood that evolution can't be tested in a lab. it can- a simple point that you managed to miss.
"not evidence for evolution"- 100% wrong. the usual creationist chant is speciation has never been observed. following "micro evolution is fine but not macro" speciation is an example of macro evolution defined to be heritable change at or above the species level.
you gave two examples of what? finches and dogs exist- your point?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
I'm perfectly familiar with the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. you can fault yourelf for finding it far fetched given the evidence.
your post seemed to be saying evolution is wrong because the galapagos finches haven't evolved into dinosaurs...they're still finches???
you never answered the question about the book you quoted. tell me, have you ever actually read a book on evolution written by a biologist? dawkins? coyne? carroll? miller? anyone?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
"what it is that you cannot follow here"- your incoherent post.
"The example I gave regarding Speciation is pretty straightforward"- maybe. but since neither you nor I have a clue as to what you were giving an example of....any ideas?
Dogs? again- what is your point? they were domesticate 15,000 years ago. why do you think evolution would predict anything other than dogs? what do you think Darwin was saying about the finches that was wrong?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
one way you are wrong is the following- "Speciation is not evolution".
what point are you trying to make about finches? of course they are still finches. what would you expect? giraffes? what do you think evoution would predict? why?
"evolution says those mutations through natural selection should produce changes that turn them into dino's as one current belief is"- sorry, I've not the remotest idea what you're saying here. can you try again?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
you are simply wrong. where is the evidence that NS and mutation is degenerative? can you cite a paper? speciation has been observed and documented many times. do you think the scientists working on this are wrong?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
perfectly happy to discuss. bet tell me. you don't have that book do you? which page is this on? "many as yet unknown systems (of evolution) remain to be discovered".
you are prattling falsehoods. TofE is tested in the lab every day.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion you didnt make and objection. you regurgitated a quote from a book you don't have. well, do you? if not it's quote mining.
here;s the sentence from 153
"We are on somewhat stronger ground with the assumption that the fishes, amphibia, reptiles, birds and mammals are interrelated"
did you think he objected to the theory?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
can you tell me what you think is strange about a consise exposition of a theory provided by a supporter of that theory to explain a consise exposition of the facts that theory purports to explain- provided by me. are you struggling with the notion of theory in science? theory vs fact to be explained?
there's nothing strange at all.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
ooo oooo!!! a quote mine!!!!
can you tell me the first sentence of the third paragraph on page 153? do you have the book? have you read it?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
short definition of evolution: change in alelle frequencies over time. this is an observed fact in every population of ever species ever observed. it is the fact of evolution.
the Theory of Evolution is an explanation of those facts- at present the only scientific explanation out there.
one thing it certainly does not predict is that an experiment on bacteria should produce something other than bacteria. please tell me where you got that idea? I'm genuinely curious.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
"give me your definition of what evolution is"- certainly. Fact or theory?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@thehypostaticunion
good grief.....where do you get these mad ideas of what evolution requires? with all due respect (not much) you've not got the faintest idea of evolution or science in general. can we replicate star formation in a lab. no. therefore according to you we can't have a scientific theory of star formation. what is "the contrary" of evolution that you wrongly think unnamed experiments show? is there a contrary to atomic theory? the evidence either supports a theory or it doesnt.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@xMcLoven
"I don't really understand your phrase "I know he churns out the same yarn about lecturing a college student atheist changing the location to suit his audience" could you elaborate on that more?"
watch thunderf00t's "why do people laugh at creationists- part 29" you'll find zacharias lying about an exchange with a student at Nottingham and the same yarn in another video with the student this time at Harvard.
dishonest, lazy and stupid.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thehypostaticunion
"Evolution teaches that single-celled animals changed by mutation and natural selection into reptiles, birds, mammals and people, over millions of years"
no. evolution involves more processes than this. your knowledge of what is observed seems to be lacking
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@xMcLoven
the mindless ignorant babble about "the human enzyme" whatever that is, comes right after 3 attempts at the oldest clunker in the creationist repertoire- "en explosion in a printing press doesn't make a dictionary"- no shit sherlock! the relevance of this to modern biology is nil. books don't reproduce, dont undergo natural selection and are not subject to heritable mutation.
like I said he is lazy dishonest and/ or stupid- good enough for a world class apologist it seems.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@xMcLoven "Can you provide factual evidence that he does not know anything about the subject of evolution"- sure I can. look up his embarassing antics on James Kennedy's TV show- notice of course that despite his pretense that he has information that overturns 150 years of scientific work he goes on JesusTV, nowhere near a scientific conference!
"babble babble....Jim....babbble...the human enzyme Jim which is the building block Jim of the gene Jim which is the building block Jim of the cell"
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@xMcLoven
rather than mischaracterise criticism of zacharias's clear and relentless dishonesty as a rant why not address his multiple lies?
he conflates evolution with the "origin of the universe"- a mistake that would embarass a high school student.
read for example his idiotic RANT about biologist ken millier where your hero calls him a "materialist" when in fact he's a practising catholic.
I need no permission to critisise his character. he's a small minded dishonest bigot. happy?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@xMcLoven
"hard time representing the position of those that disagree with him?"- his grotesque distortion of athiesm would be a prime example. "god killers"? sounds like the outrage of a spioiled child to me
"churns out the same yarn"- do a search here and you'll find him performing the same story with the student repsonses word for word identical but the location changes. I bet my house he's lying about this- just like he lies about being a senior research fellow at oxford university.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@xMcLoven
I know he has a hard time honestly representing the postion of those who disagree with him. I know he churns out the same yarn about lecturing a college student atheist changing the location to suit his audience- I call that lying what do you call it?
I also know that he is monumentally ignorant on the subject of evolution and too stupid, lazy dishonest or some combination of the above to get off his backside and educate himself.
I know enough thanks...
mcmanustony 5 months ago
what is hillarious about watching a sanctimonious bigot prattle about a subject he knows nothing about?
mcmanustony 5 months ago
Are we really that different from the animal world?!!
mythcontrolpill 5 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga
I don't think much of it since I, and practically ALL scientists disagree w Hoyle & Wickramasinghe's methods at arriving at this 'probability.' Here are 3 things wrong w their methodology:
(1)they equate natural selection to random shuffling
(2)all 2000 enzyms had to be hit upon at once like a cosmic slot machine
(3)life began requiring complex enzymes working in concert
All of these things are wrong, yet they presuppose them in order for their calculation to work.
skepticnyc 5 months ago
@FightingFitKravMaga
hmm good question. Apart from the fact that I believe all the evidence is better explained on atheism as opposed to Theism; I was raised Christian and always felt I was praying to no one. So I guess by non-belief stems from my intuition at an early age I suppose.
skepticnyc 5 months ago
Who rejects evolution?
strictly fundamentalists...
skepticnyc 5 months ago
@GodTheFag I'm sorry but I you've mistaken me for a muslim. Im a christian. Have a good day and God bless.
shawks70 6 months ago
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL scripture is given by inspiration from GOD and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness. Simply said...the Bible is 100% true or 100% untrue. Either you believe it all or you don't believe anything.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 What if I believe some bits but not others, and 2 Timothy 3:16 is among the bits that I don't believe? You may be right (I don't think are of course) but your logic doesn't support your argument (technically, you have implied your conclusion in your preposition). Furthermore, If you believe that "ALL scripture is ..." does that mean you are happy to include the Tao Te Ching or the Bhagavad Gita which have equal claim to the title "scripture", or maybe even the Qur'an? Think!
kelco93 6 months ago
@kelco93 No...Im saying all scripture in the Bible. And I don't understand how my logic doesn't support my argument. The verse doesn't say some or parts...it says ALL. Therefore, God inspired all scripture or the Bible is fake.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 OK, maybe I didn't explain my point well enough. I think your original interpretation of the passage is more-or-less logically correct, however if 2 Tim 3:16 is false then it can be accepted that other bits may also be false without necessarily discarding the whole thing. Your logic is circular because your belief that 2 Tim 3:16 is true is based on what 2 Tim 3:16 says. Do you have any reason besides what the Bible says to believe that the Bible is more true than other scriptures?
kelco93 6 months ago
@kelco93 As a christian, there is no reason to doubt what the Bible says is true because the Bible is the foundation of the christian faith. And yes, I think it is more true than scriptures from other religions for the simple fact that I believe if you don't have absolute faith in your beliefs (whether I agree with them or not) then what is the point in practicing that religion in the first place. Also, Christianity is not intended to be a religion but a personal relationship with our creator.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70
Hmm, so are you a Christian because you believe the Bible, or do you believe the Bible because you are a Christian? Or is it something more tribal, like being a loyal supporter or a football team (sorry I can't think of a better analogy), where you take on all the beliefs as a matter of solidarity?
And am I misunderstanding you, or did you really mean to say that you are able to have "absolute faith" in something even though you might not agree with it?
kelco93 6 months ago
@kelco93 I am a christian because I believe that Jesus Christ (Yehushuah ha Messhiac) is the Son of the one true God and Creator YHWH and that He died for our sins. And yes, you are misunderstanding me. What I said is that if you don't have absolute faith in your religion then there is no point to practicing it. Whether I agree with your religion is what I should have said to be more clear. Sorry.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 OK, that's cleared the last part up!
But if your faith is based on believing what's in the Bible - did you at least doubt the Bible before you became Christian? And what can you say to someone who has an "absolute faith" in a different religion (or no faith) that will make them consider that the Bible might be true. Or is that something that can't be proved but just has to be believed as part of being a Christian (in which case can you be a Christian and not think the Bible is true?)
kelco93 6 months ago
@kelco93 Hmmmm...thats a tough one. I guess i can start by saying that I was raised a christian and have always believed in God. However my relationship has not always been a good one. I have gone from absolute hatred of God and christians to an agnostic attitude where I thought believing there was a God and being a good person was all I needed. I did believe the Bible was fallible but that was just a way to make myself feel better and not wanting to face the fact that I am a sinner.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 That's a really nice from-your-heart reply, thanks. So you've never really considered that maybe there is no God, or asked yourself how you can be sure that some of the stories in the Bible weren't purely fictional? I've read that the books which are in the Bible was not finalised until about 400 years ago and before that some were in - some out depending on location and local sentiment (i.e. human judgement). So it's like the Bible arrests you for sin but you didn't ask it for ID?
kelco93 6 months ago
@kelco93 No matter my relationship with God, I have always believed in God for the simple reason of...how did we get here? I do not believe, nor have i ever believed in evolution other than micro evolution which is simply the variations in a kind. And I didn't really understand what you meant by that last sentence.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 His last sentence means: HOW can you be sure the Bible is accurate? What is the basis for its authority?
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 My basis is that I believe that YHWH is all powerful and I trust in him to preserve his holy word.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 Who do you know the Bible is this particular "holy word"? Why don't you believe in the apocryphal gospels that were written by early christians? Why don't you believe in the Qu'ran, which muslims say is the ABSOLUTE WORD OR GOD? Why don't you believe in the Book or Mormons, or ANY OTHER "sacred" book??
Why is the Bible you're holding in our hands is "holy word"? How are you so sure?
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 Because the islam, mormonism and catholicism are pagan religions. Because MY bible says it is.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 Are you for real??? What kind of proof is that??? You sound like a 5 year old... "because my father says so..."
As for your criticism of Catholicism, I wouldn't expect anything better from a dangerous fanatic.
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 I don't know what other proof I need other than the word of God. And I'm not criticizing catholicism, I'm simply stating facts that it is a pagan religion and that its followers are being deceived by the papacy.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 HOW do you know the Bible is the Word of God??? THAT'S THE QUESTION!!! Saying "The Bible says so" is NOT SUFFISENT.
On Catholicism now, it's NOT SUFFISENT to just say "pagan religion" for it to be true. It's NOT SUFFISENT to simply say "deceived by the papacy" neither.
GIVE ME SPECIFICS.
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 Because 2 Timothy 3:16 says that it is. That is my whole point. That verse gives me the promise that I can rely on the Bible as the inherent word of God to base and live my life on what He deems as righteousness. The pope cannot do that because he is a man and needs the same forgiveness and mercy the rest of us do.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 Does 2 Tim 3.16 specifically name the 27 Books of the New Testament?? THAT'S MY POINT
Besides that... how is 2 Tim 3.16 A PROOF OF ANYTHING????
The Qu'ran also has numerous verses that say that's it's the Word of God. Why don't you believe it??
"That verse gives me the promise"
Why do you trust this verse IN THE FIRST PLACE?? THAT'S MY POINT
"The pope cannot do that because he is a man"
Guided by the Holy Spirit. I never said the pope doesn't need forgiveness and mercy.
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 as far as specifics...sunday worship, easter, christmas, clergy, nuns, celibacy, polytheism, idols. All come from pagan sun worship and were all adopted into the catholic church. The pope basically took mithraism and changed some of the key names to fit with christianity.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 What's wrong with a holy day in the week? What wrong with celebrating the Resurrection (Easter)? What's wrong with celebrating the Nativity of Christ (Christmas)? What wrong with clergy? What wrong with contemplation (nuns)? What wrong with celibacy? (All the Apostles, except for Peter, were celibates. Paul strongly encouges celibacy) Where do you get polytheism from, when the Credo starts with "I believe in ONE GOD"?? We don't have idols, because we KNOW who we worship.
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 Because your holy day is sunday and God specifically says to worship on the Sabbath (seventh day not the first). Because easter is a pagan day that has nothing to do with Jesus because he was Crucified on Passover. Christmas is the birthday of every cultures pagan messiah( look it up...its in the encyclopedia). Jesus was born around the end of september-beginning of october. Celebacy goes against Gods command of be fruitful and multiply.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 HAHAHAHAHHA
1. How the hell do you know which is the "first" and the "seventh" day??
2. What the FUCK does it matter in the end to keep the "sabbath holy" on Sunday rather than on Saterday?
"pagan" "pagan" "pagan" That's all I hear. What does it MEAN in the end??
If celebacy goes against God's command, then why was Paul a celibate?
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 I know because I have a calendar...they have then at a lot of stores. You should pick one up. It matters because God says it does. Commandment 4-Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor but on the seventh you shall rest (paraphrasing). It will be very important in the future. I keep using the word pagan to again make a point. The bible specifically says not to practice the ways of the heathen.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 There is no "first" or "seventh" day... That's MAN MADE!!! Are you that stupid???
"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor but on the seventh you shall rest"
SO WHAT if I decide that my holy day is on Sunday?? Do I transgress any rule?
That's EXACTLY the danger of being out of the Catholic Church: to err into foulish heresy.
And you HAVEN'T answer my question on WHY DO YOU TRUST THE BIBLE TO BE TRUE??? Your arguments were NOT good ones.
Gazdo01 6 months ago
@Gazdo01 No...it was made by God. Go back and read Genesis. And it does matter because God says it matters and you nor the pope can change it. Even the catholic church knows the sabbath is on a saturday. And if all you can do is regress to vulgar language and insults I'm through debating this with you.
shawks70 6 months ago
@shawks70 Hahahahahaha
This is not a debate, this is a public demonstation of your endoctrination and lact of reasoning.
You are C-R-A-Z-Y and delusionned. You don't even know WHY you believe the things you believe.
My best argument is your incapacity to answer this simple question: can you imagine a potential argument that, if it was true, would make you reject your position?
Gazdo01 6 months ago