AGuest, I sincerely apologize for atacking you more than your logic.
Peace,
Gerard
Posts by Gerard
-
282Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
-
95
Namby-Pambyland boo hoo Drama Queen
by brotherdan inalright guys,.
i'm going to suck up my pride, apologize to those that i offended, promise to not be insulting anymore, and let bygones be bygones.
i know that there will be people here that will make fun of me coming back after such a dramatic exit (i.e.
-
-
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Gerard
This is my report of what I learned from my trip to Bizzarro World:
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Gerard
Dear AGuest, of course you will not see any proof when you don't want to see any.
A "non-religious" creationist slave of Christ and worshipper of the Lord. Is that cognitive dissonance or pure baiting?
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Gerard
If you could reason with religious people there would be no religions at all.
Nevermind discussing with people who have 2-way conversations with imaginary gods.
-
17
Watchtower 1973 - "Scientific" article explains there were Dinosaurs on Noahs Ark! = College Education??!
by Witness 007 inthis article must have been written by bethels most advanced scientific mind......this is why we need a college education.. .
watchtower 1973 july 15 p.7 "question from readers.
when did the dinosuars become extinct?
-
-
Gerard
So you chose the carrot on the stick. Cute.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Gerard
I did not say there is no philogeny done at all in hominids, my dear AGuest. I said the research is just starting and not much has been done yet. There is no conclusion yet from the experts, so feel free to hold back your final conclusion before they postulate theirs.
Moving on; when a scientist writes "most likely" is because there is hard proof - the equivalent for a lawyer saying "beyond any reasonable doubt". "The most likely scenario" in science is infinitely most accurate (eg: real) than any "most likey scenario" a creationists may present, because science uses testable physical facts, not make believe stories (this is the part where creationists wave their Bible as it was a self-evident unifying treatise of quantum mechanics with relativity).
What you stubornly refuse to notice (or acknowledge) is that the difference between scientific evidence and religious "evidence" is that science is based on physical facts which anybody can test and duplicate; while your Bible (the product of creative goat herders) are fables, parables, allegories and myths, which you -as a follower of the faith- have to accept without testing or reasoning just because a goat-herder said so. Did they mention real towns and cities in the Bible? Big deal! It does not mean all of its content is real. Is the Earth the center of the Solar system? (please say no). Written myths do not mean that dead people actually rise from their graves on command, or that talking bushes exist. Chosing to believe it is not the same as finding out if it does happen.
The day we agree on the same meaning of the word "FACT" then we will have a fruitful conversation, because you keep confusing theory with stories, knowledge with belief, fact with faith and physical proofs with 'the Bible said so'.
To finish, I reiterate to you that there is not a single scientific peer-reviewed research paper ever published by creationists, and you dismiss this so casualy as if the inmensity of its implication was not even relevant to your argument. If you are ignorant of this fact, it does not void it, for the same reason you cannot break the law just because you are ignorant of it.
Ask yourself: why there is no scientific peer-reviewed research papers on creationism? ..... (if your consciense or gods allow allow you to THINK challenging ideas).
Want me to prove their inexistence? Better you prove us their existence and Google a couple of peer-reviewed scientific papers on creationism and put me in my place. The facts on this and a multitude of scientific concepts have been offered to you, and you keep dismissing them not with additional counteracting FACTS, but with your arbitrary preference for religious myths and faith/emotion.
I understand that "god did it" is a very warm and fussy idea, but you will not grow in wisdom when you resort to it whenever you don't like the [physical] evidence presented. If you don't like the answers, don't do the questions. If the answers brought by science are not good enough for you, it is OK, really, as it is good enough for human civilization.
PS: No word back on your research on the origin of mitochondria and common descent? Naaah... it's not on the Bible so it is most likely satanic hocus-pocus.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Gerard
Had AGuest name her god GAIA, I may be interested in listening more.
What does it say about me? (A rethorical question for my own amusement).
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Gerard
AGuest, the experiments are done on bacteria or yeast because their generation time (or "doubling time") are of several minutes, (drosophila flies are very useful too for genetic research) compared to that of mammals which require several years to grow and produce progeny to observe and analyse. The results obtained from bacteria are very significant because all living organisms use nucleic acids (DNA & RNA) and most -if not all of its mechanisms function identically in all living beings. In a period of a few months you could follow the genetic makeup (be it mutations, drift, etc.) of hundreds (or thousands) of well characterized generations. This work can be extrapolated with a great degree of reliability to eukariotic life as the mechanism is practically the same but in slower motion. Once the scientist gets a "golden key" or a significant insight, she/he may adapt her research to using eukariotes, or medium sized mammals or even primates to take it a notch further.
Regarding the different branches of hominids, I do not believe there has been much philogeny (the evolutionary development and history of a species) done, mostly because of the great difficulty of obtaining DNA samples from fossils, as the organic material has been replaced by minerals. Is this a dead end? No. Molecular biology is a very new field and it is still in diapers - sort of speaking.
DNA has been passed on from the earliest generations and it still encodes for proteins not required now under this atmosphere and environment. In other words, the DNA of any species is a "living book" of each species, and we are just starting how to decipher its past history still encoded in DNA.
Also, be aware that not a single lab test is used to establish common descent. Like in criminal law or in forensics, you would use a collection of several individual physical evidence and known mechanisms and/or scientific evidence (all in agreement) that indicate that so far, it is the most likely scenario (or as you would say in your field:" proof beyond reasonable doubt".) SO don't get hang up on some E.coli experiment and see the whole battery of experiments done.
Peace,
Gerard
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Gerard
One of the most important evidence of evolution and common ancestry is the presence of mitochondria in the eukaryote cells.
Those who want to learn the facts can Google "origin of mitochondria" for thousands of scientific peer-reviewed articles on this subject. But I am aware that these are big words and require of -if not of specialized education- of thinking, not an easy alternative to "god did it" so most creationists won't bother to read the evidence.
