Prowler was born with huge genitalia!!

[natty dread]

Why don't you go mutate yourself.

[Haggis_McMutton]

LOL utter nonsense

there are no beneficial mutations

mutations damages the gene pool

I'm really hoping you're trolling here, but just in case:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Enjoy.

[Hensow]

you need a cursory understanding of DNA and gentics to know that Evolution from species to species is impossible.

why
it's not like its hard for chromosome to split and fuse a simple copy of the centromere will cause a brake when the cell splits that seem at a glance to be the main ID argument from genetics or are you refuring to an other problem
hell with out Mendelian genetics Natural selection is pretty wholly

[Frigidus]

you need a cursory understanding of DNA and gentics to know that Evolution from species to species is impossible.

why
it's not like its hard for chromosome to split and fuse a simple copy of the centromere will cause a brake when the cell splits that seem at a glance to be the main ID argument from genetics or are you refuring to an other problem
hell with out Mendelian genetics Natural selection is pretty wholly

[jay_a2j]

Shoot, I can't think of one person who agrees with Jay on a whole host of issues but nobody thinks he is purposely trying to deceive us. He's really really wrong but that's where it ends.

On what?

Evolution?

Abortion?

That Christians should not promote sin?

That Christians should support Israel?

911? (OK I know this isn't popular but until the questions I have are answered in a logical way, I'm not buying it)

[PLAYER57832]

I have never called a religious person an idiot (for being religious; there are plenty of religious people who are, but that's not limited to religion). We can talk about what I see or refuse to see for hours, but you will likely never tell me what it is that I'm missing, which is telling.

That is the effect of your words above, whether you wish to admit it or not.

[PLAYER57832]

As for Dr Morris, Timminz put it well. I am against anyone who puts forth lies as truth, particularly when they do it in the name of Christ. Nothing put forward on those Creation websites really proves anything against Evolution or proves that the Earth is young. And, while I am quite sure Dr Morris and most of his followers believe they are just "following the Bible", I find it interesting that this issue, one Christ did not even directly address, is the one they use as the wedge within the church. This movement is most definitely NOT from Christ or the Bible. Christ has no need to lie. He disdains liars.

Alright, but see that's your problem. You're not just satisfied with saying that he's wrong. You're taking the extra step to call him a liar. That's why you come off as so judgmental. To be a liar, he would have to have previous knowledge that something else, in this case evolutionary theory, is correct. He would then have to knowingly put out ideas that were contrary to what he knew was correct.

I have said before that Dr Morris does not think he is lying. I also know a good many people read that stuff and, mostly don't know enough to see why it is wrong or see why (most often the case) it just really is not saying anything at all, while giving the impression it is putting forth "great evidence".

One example is the disdainful comment of Chuck Ingrim in one of his lectures about evolution. He says "well, there was all this hoopla about a 'dinosaur fish' that was supposed to be the 'missing link' between fish and amphibians. They went out and studied and what did they find... a strange fish". Now, he did not know the name. I do, it was the Ceolocanth. And it was/is a lobe-finned fish, I believe the only known remnant of a group of very primitive lobe-finned fish. It WAS an astounding discover. It DID affirm a lot of what is believed about evolution. But, according to Chuck Ingrim, to be a "missing link" it was supposed to be some kind of half lizard/half fish combination. Evolutionists talk of very gradual, slow changes over a long period of time, interspersed with some dramatic shifts following huge die-offs of species. This is what the fossil record indicates.

Creationists like to claim that transition species means a new species has to completely replace the old ones. This is sometimes true, but not always. Its like saying your grandfather ceases to exist when your cousin and you were born.

We used to debate different doctrines and theology in the Jesus Freaks forum. There's consensus on the major doctrines but not on little issues. Shoot, I can't think of one person who agrees with Jay on a whole host of issues but nobody thinks he is purposely trying to deceive us.

Jay is not purposefully trying to decieve anyone. But that's the problem.

The greatest harm comes not from those who are truly evil. They can harm our bodies, but not our spirit. The real harm comes from those who think they are telling the truth, who are very sure they are correct, but who refuse to even consider that others might be right as well or that they themselves might be wrong.

In this case, there just is no middle ground. Or rather, there are three possibilities, none of which are what Dr Morris and his ilk put forward.
A.God created all in six revolutions of our Earth, but made it look as if it were old.

B.God created all in six revolutions of the Earth, and almost ALL of science and every proof they put forward is just wrong.

C.God used Evolution and, like many Jews, many Christians believe, used evolution. Genesis is literal, but not in the scientific sense. Yom=day= either a 24 hour period OR a much longer period of time. In Genesis, the "day" is "God's day", not ours.

He's really really wrong but that's where it ends. Nobody I've read from has ever taken the extra step of calling someone they disagree with a liar during our disagreements. Can you see why you come off as hateful when you take the extra step of judging Dr. Morris as a liar? Calling someone's views as wrong is totally different.

I actually don't say Dr Morris is a liar. I say he puts forward lies as if they were truth. He believes what he puts forward.

Yes, I have gotten intolerant on this issue, but the fact is that most what the Institute puts forward is really proof either of young earth creationism or evolution. It is opinion that goes something like "well, evolutionists claim that we have all these vestigial parts (heh, heh), I think something like 175 [note, I am more or less quoting and actual lecture, though I cannot remember the exact number of parts they claimed]. Now, I ask you, why would we have all these parts that are just not used? It does not make sense! If evolution is supposed to make things better, why all these extra parts?" Or [another lecture on same topic by same guy] "except, it turns out that a lot of these parts actually have a function, they are not actually vestigial at all!". The assertion of the first is pretty straightforward and a common creationist argumet .. it just doesn't make sense. Problem is, a lot in science really doesn't make sense when you first look. The second is more deceptive. It sets out a result and tries to claim it is proof and that finding a different result, therefore, disproves the idea. Vestigial parts are seen as evidence of evolution, but it is not necessary that they be vestigial for evolution to be true. It is merely that we see, in some cases, a progression wehre some parts, "no longer needed" (but that anthropomorphises evolution incorrectly, the real truth is that they just dissappear "through chance", because those species that have them don't have any reproductive advantage in keeping them).

What do those arguments accomplish? The worst problem is that they perpetuate false ideas of proof and scientific thinking. You see this constantly in jay's arguments, but also in most people who believe these things.

The problem here is not that some people believe the world was created in 6 days. The problem is that they claim there is PROOF of that, that all the evidence put forward for evolution either does not exist or is just wrong, AND further force school boards around the country to spend millions fighting this belief as if it has real evidence.

At a time when our kids need to learn real, credible science more than every, this groups steps in and damages that in whole school districts. Those kids then grow up to be voting citizens, who, like Jay have never been taught real science and therefore make decisions based entirely upon a false model of truth.

I used to think this was a simple religious misunderstanding. No longer. There is far more behind this movement than a few people who think that reading the Bible literally means that the Earth is only 12,000 years old (or whatever the latest estimate is.. it changes). This movement's REAL intent is nothing more than getting millions of people to completely disdain science. It pretends otherwise, but look at the result.

I challenge you to "follow the money". AND, to follow the power.

[tzor]

ive been reading on this topic.

its obvious to me that Evolution is a religion that is complete nonsense.

you need a cursory understanding of DNA and gentics to know that Evolution from species to species is impossible.

A cursory examination won't get you anywhere. A "cursory" examination of basic electromagnetic theoy will tell you that atoms, as we know them, cannot exist, and yet they do. This is a good proof why a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing because it could lead to wrong results.

[PLAYER57832]

LOL utter nonsense

there are no beneficial mutations

mutations damages the gene pool

Not sure where you get this idea? Care to name sources?

[PLAYER57832]

ive been reading on this topic.

its obvious to me that Evolution is a religion that is complete nonsense.

you need a cursory understanding of DNA and gentics to know that Evolution from species to species is impossible.

A cursory examination won't get you anywhere. A "cursory" examination of basic electromagnetic theoy will tell you that atoms, as we know them, cannot exist, and yet they do. This is a good proof why a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing because it could lead to wrong results.

This is precisely what the Institute for Creation Research exploits to the fullest... they take a portion of real truth, but misundertand it into complete distortions of the truth. However, if scientists did a better job of teaching, making sure that even elementary school teachers down through kindergarten understand these things, then few people could be so decieved. OR, at least, it would be more clear that there was a true deception here and not just "simple misunderstandings".

[tzor]

One example is the disdainful comment of Chuck Ingrim in one of his lectures about evolution. He says "well, there was all this hoopla about a 'dinosaur fish' that was supposed to be the 'missing link' between fish and amphibians. They went out and studied and what did they find... a strange fish". Now, he did not know the name. I do, it was the Ceolocanth. And it was/is a lobe-finned fish, I believe the only known remnant of a group of very primitive lobe-finned fish. It WAS an astounding discover. It DID affirm a lot of what is believed about evolution. But, according to Chuck Ingrim, to be a "missing link" it was supposed to be some kind of half lizard/half fish combination. Evolutionists talk of very gradual, slow changes over a long period of time, interspersed with some dramatic shifts following huge die-offs of species. This is what the fossil record indicates.

One of the biggest mis-understandings of evolution is something that was not known in Darwin's time. He proposed an analog "gradual" evolution system because it seemed only logical at the time. We now know that a lot of the DNA is actually a "binary" mechanism with "turn on" and "turn off" options. IIRC one good example is the mechanism that distinguishes between making feathers and making a hair; there is a single "turn on" / "turn off" DNA switch involved. Other switches will determine the "type" of hair or feather that will be created but the switch from hair to feather is a singular event.

[Neoteny]

I have never called a religious person an idiot (for being religious; there are plenty of religious people who are, but that's not limited to religion). We can talk about what I see or refuse to see for hours, but you will likely never tell me what it is that I'm missing, which is telling.

That is the effect of your words above, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Perhaps. If it comes out that I think a particular person is stupid in a discussion, then perhaps they can take it to heart. You won't find me making silly generalizations like that.

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="Neoteny]"..."[/quote]
I moved my answer to the "logic dictates" thread.

[PLAYER57832]

One example is the disdainful comment of Chuck Ingrim in one of his lectures about evolution. He says "well, there was all this hoopla about a 'dinosaur fish' that was supposed to be the 'missing link' between fish and amphibians. They went out and studied and what did they find... a strange fish". Now, he did not know the name. I do, it was the Ceolocanth. And it was/is a lobe-finned fish, I believe the only known remnant of a group of very primitive lobe-finned fish. It WAS an astounding discover. It DID affirm a lot of what is believed about evolution. But, according to Chuck Ingrim, to be a "missing link" it was supposed to be some kind of half lizard/half fish combination. Evolutionists talk of very gradual, slow changes over a long period of time, interspersed with some dramatic shifts following huge die-offs of species. This is what the fossil record indicates.

One of the biggest mis-understandings of evolution is something that was not known in Darwin's time. He proposed an analog "gradual" evolution system because it seemed only logical at the time. We now know that a lot of the DNA is actually a "binary" mechanism with "turn on" and "turn off" options. IIRC one good example is the mechanism that distinguishes between making feathers and making a hair; there is a single "turn on" / "turn off" DNA switch involved. Other switches will determine the "type" of hair or feather that will be created but the switch from hair to feather is a singular event.

Yes, he also did not realize Earth was as old as it is, the full diversity of life that exists, or the many cataclysms that Earth has endured.

This is one reason I say that Evolution is actually best seen as a series of small theories that fit together into a whole. And, the evidence supporting each part varies. Some parts are, quite admittedly pretty sketchy. This is another fact that Creationists exploit. They often focus on areas where there is little proof and then pretend that those are full examples of how paleontologists make leaps. Even when they focus, they often omit key details. Those all-too-obvious ommissions are part of why I say some of the scientists don't just misunderstand, but are really and truly intentionally distorting truth. Much of the evidence they simply ignore or actually claim is missing is all to easy to find. They simply choose not to acknowledge it.

[GabonX]

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

So did anyone else read this and consider the possibility that the child may not actually be 2dimes' son??

Statistically speaking it's something like 1 in every 10 people were lied to about who their father was by their mother...

[PLAYER57832]

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

So did anyone else read this and consider the possibility that the child may not actually be 2dimes' son??

Statistically speaking it's something like 1 in every 10 people were lied to about who their father was by their mother...

More than one person mentioned that, yes. That was rather what I implied when I said I was going to assume the obvious was excluded. In truth, when it comes to 2dimes, I would be more likely to suspect that they got the wrong child in the hospital. That does happen more often than people think. BUT, it is also something relatively easy to check nowadays.

[tzor]

There was an old joke in my old Alma Mata. In the student newspaper there was a fictional soap opera that developed along the personal ads and the letters to the editor. The story was about this student named Bruce and this other student (in a school where at the time the female ratio was 10%) named Sheila. Through the personal ads they met, dated, and so forth. Finally it was revealed that Sheila was pregnant. A debate was held in the letters to the editor where it was commonly agreed that he should "marry the wretch." He did and after graduation she gave birth to a wonderful baby boy. Since, as she explained, one in four people are currently born Chineese, her baby boy was Chineese even though neither she nor Bruce was. Poor Bruce.

[Lionz]

Fitz,

We might know little to nothing, but maybe we should at least try to weigh evidence. What if He does exist and loves you?

Natty,

You say one or more thing as if a lizard can suddenly have offspring with wings maybe.

When has a mutation created something new that was not simply the result of a scrambling of pre-existing information?









How about Figure 15-11 show an image of a creature with a beneficial mutation if there is such a thing?

Haggis,

Is there something specific here that you're willing to discuss in detail...

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Higher up sections numbered 1-3 addressed here perhaps...

1. Where is there a beneficial mutation here? Was it not simply a case of some E. coli. being less suitable for certain temperatures than other E coli. and being more likely to die off in certain temperatures as a result?

It's kind of like if you bred 2000 generations of Iraqis (Group A) and then bred 2000 descendants of them in Iraq (Group B) and 2000 descendants of them in Iceland (Group C) and 2000 descendants of them in Ethiopia (Group C) and then compared how each of the three groups compared with eachother in regards to surviving in each place maybe. What would locals surviving better have to do with beneficial mutations? It might be that there would be individuals with genes not good for surviving in cold who would be weeded out early on in Group C and individuals with genes not good for surviving in heat who would be weeded out early on in Group D. Nice example for natural selection and not for a beneficial mutation maybe.

2) Can becoming more used to being able to grow in the dark not happen in a single individual without reproduction at all? Was there an actual beneficial mutation? What if there was some unicellular green algae that was better able to grow in the dark than other unicellular green algae in the first place who were better able to survive and pass on successful generations? Nice example for natural selection and not for a beneficial mutation here also maybe.

3) Someone measured an original sample of unicellular green algae and filtered off smaller cells over a course of 40 generations and discovered that they came up with an average size that was greater than an average size of the original sample after the 40 generations? Is that what happened? Would you not expect a larger size on average after 40 generations with or without any mutation? How about imagine breeding dogs and starting off with a 1000 full grown adults of various sizes ranging from a foot to 5 feet long and averaging 3 feet long? If you only allow males over 4 feet in length to reproduce and end up with full grown adult dogs averaging over 3 feet in length after twenty years, what would that have to do with beneficial mutations?

Want me to go on? You actually bring up a site I was referred to back in 2009 or earlier maybe.

Player,

Who's forcing a wedge into a church? You might be hard pressed to find a Christian a few hundred years ago who did not think earth was less than 10,000 years old.

You wrongly suggested there were only three certain possibilities with one or more having to do with Him making earth to look old maybe. What about earth looks old to you? Is there a way He could have instantly created earth out of nothing without you thinking as though it looked old?

What does young earth creationism have to do with money and power?

[2dimes]

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

So did anyone else read this and consider the possibility that the child may not actually be 2dimes' son??

Statistically speaking it's something like 1 in every 10 people were lied to about who their father was by their mother...

More than one person mentioned that, yes. That was rather what I implied when I said I was going to assume the obvious was excluded. In truth, when it comes to 2dimes, I would be more likely to suspect that they got the wrong child in the hospital. That does happen more often than people think. BUT, it is also something relatively easy to check nowadays.

Wrong child, yes. They somehow mixed him up in the womb. Here's a picture of the little guy.

[jay_a2j]

Wrong child, yes. They somehow mixed him up in the womb. Here's a picture of the little guy.

OMG! Finally! The PROOF that evolution is REAL!!!!!!!

[tzor]

Fitz,

We might know little to nothing, but maybe we should at least try to weigh evidence. What if He does exist and loves you?

Then Fitz misses out on all the love.

The problem is, on just face value, it's impossible to make any explanations for the photos you provided. We like to think all life is simple; a bunch of cells, all sharing the same DNA, all happily working along a predictable pattern based solely on that DNA. I hate to break it to you, but that model is not very common. Ignoring the problem of genetic chimeras (creatures that evolved literally from more than one fertilized egg that combined into a common unit) the various cells of the body are as much influenced by chemicals within the body as they are by the DNA within the cells themselves. Those chemicals are somewhat controlled by the DNA switches, but it is still a very complicated process. Boys are, for the most part boys because they are flooded with "boy juice" (or hormones) and the same is true for women. Animals that can play loose and fast with their hormones can in fact change gender depending on the occasion.

I'm guessing that the two headed turtle and the five legged animal are examples of chimeras - the most extreeme example of a case would be a simaese twin where the intersection of the two beings is minimal.

[ga7]

IT'S A FUCKING LLAMA YOU MORON! (cf pg 1)

[PLAYER57832]

Fitz,

We might know little to nothing, but maybe we should at least try to weigh evidence. What if He does exist and loves you?

Natty,

You say one or more thing as if a lizard can suddenly have offspring with wings maybe.

When has a mutation created something new that was not simply the result of a scrambling of pre-existing information?

First, your most IS by "scrambling" the same basic protein combinations. This is, in fact a big piece of evidence that suggests a single creation. However, there have been new inserts, new creations.

Player,

Who's forcing a wedge into a church? You might be hard pressed to find a Christian a few hundred years ago who did not think earth was less than 10,000 years old. [/quote]
And a few hundred before that, you would be hard-pressed to find manywho thought the Earth was round, even fewer who would have thought there was a big continent where I now sit. It is not so much that people thought this because they had evidence. They thought it because it was just inconceivable that there was another option. This is true of many, many things. Then evidence shows otherwise.

You wrongly suggested there were only three certain possibilities with one or more having to do with Him making earth to look old maybe. What about earth looks old to you? Is there a way He could have instantly created earth out of nothing without you thinking as though it looked old?

None of the evidence you presented or that I have seen anywhere points toward a young Earth. Only someone with no knowledge of how water actually works would ever think, for example, that the Grand Canyon was the result of a world-wide flood or that those things you call "whirlpools" were created that way. I answered every example you brought up. Again, you ignored just about every one.

What does young earth creationism have to do with money and power?

Follow the money and you wind up with some interesting answers. Follow the result of thinking the Earth is young, created instantly by God and many ,many things ranging from species eradications to impacts of pollution on genetics, etc all can be discounted.

Evolution is not the sole issue, but it is a big one. Why? Why did this one issue suddenly become one of "the" issues when there are so many issues about which the Bible is absolutely clear?

[PLAYER57832]

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

So did anyone else read this and consider the possibility that the child may not actually be 2dimes' son??

Statistically speaking it's something like 1 in every 10 people were lied to about who their father was by their mother...

More than one person mentioned that, yes. That was rather what I implied when I said I was going to assume the obvious was excluded. In truth, when it comes to 2dimes, I would be more likely to suspect that they got the wrong child in the hospital. That does happen more often than people think. BUT, it is also something relatively easy to check nowadays.

Wrong child, yes. They somehow mixed him up in the womb. Here's a picture of the little guy.

[picture of baboon eliminated to save space]
Well, fine, then maybe your wife did sleep with another guy.

[natty dread]

Now, he did not know the name. I do, it was the Ceolocanth.

Coelacanth, actually. (oh the irony! )