@CreationMinistries No, accusing your opponent of name calling they never partook in is the last bastion of those without evidence.
The explanations from either side?
Evolution: An actual observable process, translocation (one that has also occurred again in at least one modern human without affecting the ability to reproduce) that leaves easily detectable traces, such as sub-telomeric duplications occurred in an a post-divergence ancestor and moved through the population
A man with 44 c's means we evolved from a rock? Macro-evolution, Darwinism, is non-observable. Claiming biblically correct micro-evolution (kinds after their kind) is all you can show. Bait & switch is all you have - admit it
@CreationMinistries No, not your strawman at all, try actually learning what I'm taking the time to teach you. A man with 44 chromosomes means that there are known natural processes that can produce our chromosome 2, as opposed to creation that can only assert 'magic did it'
'We don't have a time machine' is not a valid argument against historical science and 'kind' is still a useless assertion because it's never defined to any useful degree.
@TheScienceFoundation You don't seem to be able to comprehend that everytime we don't understand something you say: evolution did it. Then you call whatever the issue is proof for Darwinism when in fact you have none. To be both fair and honest, Iwhen I do respond to you it is only to give you a little more rope to hang yourself with
@CreationMinistries Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not understood by real science. Evolution explains the arrangement of our chromosome 2 through actual observable natural genetic processes. When you respond lately it appears only to project even further the weakness of your position.
@TheScienceFoundation OBSERVABLE? Yes, I am ignorant of this OBSERVABLE real science. Please let us know who OBSERVED this supposed common ancestor with the fusion event; Nothing blowing up to form everything; the formation of the big rock; the rain upon the rock; & life beginning. Once this OBSERVABLE real science is covered we'lll get into the fairy tale of Darwinism. Looking forward to seeing this OBSERVABLE real science so my ignorance can be corrected or your ignorance can be exposed
@CreationMinistries Again 'we don't have a time machine, therefore probabilistic scenarios based on observed mechanisms cannot be right no matter what' is not an argument
'Nothing blowing up to form everything; the formation of the big rock; the rain upon the rock; & life beginning'
Well that one's easy; redwinebuzz(.)com/winesooth/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strawman.jpg
So by your 'we didn't see it' logic, when do we get to see god creating anything at all?
It's not 'the missing link' it's one of about a dozen; talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
"Modern bird fossils were found below the layers.."
They weren't modern birds, technically Archaeopteryx was a bird (you can't put one organism in two orders) that find does nothing to Archeopteryx's standing as a transitional species.
"This is a perching bird and no amount of paleo-babble is going to change that" This is absolutely right. The shocking thing about this statement is that it came from an evolutionist. Of course some fool will invent some false "evidence" and use it to deny the truth. Evolutionists have vivid imaginations and have NO PROBLEM telling lies.
@don142128 You would like my message, 50 Facts versus Darwinism in the Textbooks. The list of refuted Darwinian claims is endless but they always have 5 new frauds to take the place of the current ones
@CreationMinistries Thank you. I'll be sure to check it out. I've been talking to people at work, and anywhere else that I can. Most people have just always assumed that macroevolution must be true because they've never heard or seen the real evidence for creation. People need to know the dangers of Darwinism and how it has, and is destroying our young people and adults alike. They also need to know who is lying to them, and how they are suppressing the true evidence of creation.
@don142128 It's a bird because you can't put one organism in two orders, it's not a modern bird for several reasons. Conical teeth, a bony tail, interdental plates and a more dinosaur than bird skull to neck attachment from the rear. No imagination required, just the facts.
"It's a bird because you can't put one organism in two orders, it's not a modern bird" ...And yet the evolutionist MUST put one organism into two orders for the fairytale of evolution to work! They call them transitional fossils, and they are NON EXISTENT...NOTTA...NONE. But the evolutionist MUST still contend that they're in abundance. Once again, your "facts" are a little skewed to say the least.
@don142128 'And yet the evolutionist MUST put one organism into two orders for the fairytale of evolution to work'
No, I just said it's classified as a bird specifically because you can't put one organism into two orders.
'They call them transitional fossils, and they are NON EXISTENT'
Archaeopteryx has conical teeth a bony tail, an opposable hallux, interdental plates a fused furcula and a rear attached skull, how could it be MORE transitional between dinosaurs and birds?
@TheScienceFoundation The majority of the DVDs are posted on Youtube, free of charge, so people can see the truth. I'm afraid you have no concept of reality. A common problem among the Darwinists.
Refuted - you mean like your "fully functional wrists" on the lobe fin fish which were just nubs of bone? I see you removed some of the more ignorant comments you have made above - good decision - a better decision would be to stop forcing yourself to believe in such a blatantly unscientifc fairy tale and humble yourself to your Creator and Savior, Lord Jesus the Christ
@CreationMinistries No, I mean they were fully functional wrists. I removed a repeat post, though I probably didn't need to, I frequently have to refute you multiple times on your bronze age non-sense. It's so sad that you still haven't noticed nothing in reality lines up with creationism and literally everything supports evolution.
Chromosome 2? Creationism could only say "creator just made it that way" while evolution actually explains it through a translocation and descent.
WHAT modern birds in the layers below Archeopteryx? Name just one.
paleobarbie666 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a crock of shit
c0linaf 8 months ago
Name calling. The last bastion for those without evidence.
Chromosome 2 explained by evos? Claiming there must have been a fusion event in some non-observed supposed ancestor isn't exactly a great explanation!
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries No, accusing your opponent of name calling they never partook in is the last bastion of those without evidence.
The explanations from either side?
Evolution: An actual observable process, translocation (one that has also occurred again in at least one modern human without affecting the ability to reproduce) that leaves easily detectable traces, such as sub-telomeric duplications occurred in an a post-divergence ancestor and moved through the population
Creation: goddidit
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
A man with 44 c's means we evolved from a rock? Macro-evolution, Darwinism, is non-observable. Claiming biblically correct micro-evolution (kinds after their kind) is all you can show. Bait & switch is all you have - admit it
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries No, not your strawman at all, try actually learning what I'm taking the time to teach you. A man with 44 chromosomes means that there are known natural processes that can produce our chromosome 2, as opposed to creation that can only assert 'magic did it'
'We don't have a time machine' is not a valid argument against historical science and 'kind' is still a useless assertion because it's never defined to any useful degree.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation You don't seem to be able to comprehend that everytime we don't understand something you say: evolution did it. Then you call whatever the issue is proof for Darwinism when in fact you have none. To be both fair and honest, Iwhen I do respond to you it is only to give you a little more rope to hang yourself with
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not understood by real science. Evolution explains the arrangement of our chromosome 2 through actual observable natural genetic processes. When you respond lately it appears only to project even further the weakness of your position.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation OBSERVABLE? Yes, I am ignorant of this OBSERVABLE real science. Please let us know who OBSERVED this supposed common ancestor with the fusion event; Nothing blowing up to form everything; the formation of the big rock; the rain upon the rock; & life beginning. Once this OBSERVABLE real science is covered we'lll get into the fairy tale of Darwinism. Looking forward to seeing this OBSERVABLE real science so my ignorance can be corrected or your ignorance can be exposed
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Again 'we don't have a time machine, therefore probabilistic scenarios based on observed mechanisms cannot be right no matter what' is not an argument
'Nothing blowing up to form everything; the formation of the big rock; the rain upon the rock; & life beginning'
Well that one's easy; redwinebuzz(.)com/winesooth/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strawman.jpg
So by your 'we didn't see it' logic, when do we get to see god creating anything at all?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation You forgot that we have never seen pluto orbit the sun so therefore we can't say it is orbiting the sun.
MikeyyPe 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries
I should obviously start with the basics.
Do you understand that that past has already happened?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
For anyone interested, the man with 44 chromosomes;
thetech(.)org/genetics/news(.)php?id=124
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not 'the missing link' it's one of about a dozen; talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
"Modern bird fossils were found below the layers.."
They weren't modern birds, technically Archaeopteryx was a bird (you can't put one organism in two orders) that find does nothing to Archeopteryx's standing as a transitional species.
"avian lung"
cas.bellarmine(.)edu/tietjen/images/lung_structure_and_ventilation_i.htm
"Doesn't mention the evidence against evolution"
Because there is none
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 5
"This is a perching bird and no amount of paleo-babble is going to change that" This is absolutely right. The shocking thing about this statement is that it came from an evolutionist. Of course some fool will invent some false "evidence" and use it to deny the truth. Evolutionists have vivid imaginations and have NO PROBLEM telling lies.
don142128 1 year ago
@don142128 You would like my message, 50 Facts versus Darwinism in the Textbooks. The list of refuted Darwinian claims is endless but they always have 5 new frauds to take the place of the current ones
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Thank you. I'll be sure to check it out. I've been talking to people at work, and anywhere else that I can. Most people have just always assumed that macroevolution must be true because they've never heard or seen the real evidence for creation. People need to know the dangers of Darwinism and how it has, and is destroying our young people and adults alike. They also need to know who is lying to them, and how they are suppressing the true evidence of creation.
don142128 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@don142128 There is no evidence for creation, the best anyone can muster up is rubbish such as this.
'They also need to know who is lying to them'
The creationists.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Why? It's just more garbage as spouted in the rest of your videos.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@don142128 It's a bird because you can't put one organism in two orders, it's not a modern bird for several reasons. Conical teeth, a bony tail, interdental plates and a more dinosaur than bird skull to neck attachment from the rear. No imagination required, just the facts.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
"It's a bird because you can't put one organism in two orders, it's not a modern bird" ...And yet the evolutionist MUST put one organism into two orders for the fairytale of evolution to work! They call them transitional fossils, and they are NON EXISTENT...NOTTA...NONE. But the evolutionist MUST still contend that they're in abundance. Once again, your "facts" are a little skewed to say the least.
don142128 1 year ago
@don142128 'And yet the evolutionist MUST put one organism into two orders for the fairytale of evolution to work'
No, I just said it's classified as a bird specifically because you can't put one organism into two orders.
'They call them transitional fossils, and they are NON EXISTENT'
Archaeopteryx has conical teeth a bony tail, an opposable hallux, interdental plates a fused furcula and a rear attached skull, how could it be MORE transitional between dinosaurs and birds?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Sorry Russ, all the willful ignorance/deception you can muster to sell a few DVD's and bus tours will never beat reality.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation The majority of the DVDs are posted on Youtube, free of charge, so people can see the truth. I'm afraid you have no concept of reality. A common problem among the Darwinists.
don142128 1 year ago
@don142128 The other video's he's posted are censored, to comment freely and see the refutations of them, check out /user/creationistcrap
it's uncensored over there.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Refuted - you mean like your "fully functional wrists" on the lobe fin fish which were just nubs of bone? I see you removed some of the more ignorant comments you have made above - good decision - a better decision would be to stop forcing yourself to believe in such a blatantly unscientifc fairy tale and humble yourself to your Creator and Savior, Lord Jesus the Christ
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries No, I mean they were fully functional wrists. I removed a repeat post, though I probably didn't need to, I frequently have to refute you multiple times on your bronze age non-sense. It's so sad that you still haven't noticed nothing in reality lines up with creationism and literally everything supports evolution.
Chromosome 2? Creationism could only say "creator just made it that way" while evolution actually explains it through a translocation and descent.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago