religion

[G13]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am guessing you are responding to G13 (he's on my ignore list). I wouldnt waste my time if I were you. This thread is basically 100+ pages of me correcting his bullshit just to have him repeat the same line that I corrected two pasts later.

Here is a great example of it:

"russian's been trying to make foxes a different species...still same foxes" -G13

My response...no, they are breeding two distinct lines of foxes. One is breed for aggression and the other is breed for non-aggression. It is a genetic study on how genes affect behavior.

"the foxes are still foxes" - G13

Lol, 100+ pages of argument just like that. Dont waste copious amounts of time like I did :P Some folks are just beyond help. He is either one of the dumbest individuals on planet earth or he is a troll of the highest degree.

This idiot doesn't even understand what we are talking about

The foxes are still foxes

The bacteria are still bacteria

The fruit flies are still fruit flies

Doesn't prove Macro-Evolution

It's laughably embarrassing he has to respond to me by proxy because he's too much of an insecure chickenshit to face me directly. Good times.

Originally Posted by BurgyK [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hence you're retarded.

Ahh you're hurting me with the insults =/

JK Dodge noted BTW

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This idiot doesn't even understand what we are talking about

The foxes are still foxes

The bacteria are still bacteria

The fruit flies are still fruit flies

Doesn't prove Macro-Evolution

It's laughably embarrassing he has to respond to me by proxy because he's too much of an insecure chickenshit to face me directly. Good times.



Ahh you're hurting me with the insults =/

JK Dodge noted BTW

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So then you then understand how complex a cell actually is. How did such complexity organize and build itself from dirt, or some primordial goo? It's basically it's own little microscopic city powered by super computers. How did such complexity organize itself without any intelligence to guide it? Did the computer you used to type your buffoonery build itself?

I'll ask you the same questions, since you seem to want to take a stab at it

How did DNA write itself from Nothing

How did even the most basic proteins organize themselves from pure randomness. You know the mathematical odds right? Zero. These proteins have to be organized from a specific sequence with a variety of different amino acids to choose from. This requires very specific instructions. It's an impossibility that such complexity could arrange itself by pure random chance.

Epigenetics is also working within EXISTING genetic code. Where is the evidence it creates never before seen complex life forms or genetic code? Explain how epigenetics writes new DNA that works in absolute harmony with existing DNA. It's a hereditary process. An environmental and behavioral process. Breeding. Traits within an existing kind that can be reversed through behavior. On and off switches. It doesn't create a new type/kind/form of animal. Not Macro-Evolution.

Nobody is disputing variations within existing genetic code. I'm asking for one example of entirely new, never before seen genetic code that creates a never before seen kind/type of life form. Show me all the Transitional Forms that should exist if Darwinian Macro Evolution is proven testable science.

I'm actually surprised you brought it up, since it actually hurts your cause instead of helping it. The changes that are made within existing kinds/types can actually be reversed which puts the entire process back to square one. In other words, it hinders the Natural Selection process. It doesn't help it.

I'm quite curious, how do you think the universe and life began?

[leewong]

This thread is moving along slow today. Thought I would post this again:

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am going to explain evolution again for the creationist here. More than likely will regret this decision in 30 pages or so.

Creationist admit to small changes in a species. What they have trouble with is speciation. "A dog will always be and always has been a dog", they say.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With small changes over time you can end up with completely different species.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The individual symbols on this picture dont represent a single animal. They represent a species as time progresses. The amount of time between each snapshot is irrelevant for this explanation. Feel free to imagine a 100 millennia or 100 million years.

Creationist believe the blue symbol (pictured above) would produce the purple star symbol in a few short generations. The illustration above is a nice but it does not show the hundreds or thousand of generations with smaller changes that existed BETWEEN each symbol. Each of these generations would be a small step closer to looking like the next symbol in the picture. This is micro-evolution in action and the sum total is called macro-evolution. The same exact mechanisms are responsible for micro and macro evolution. Those mechanisms are mutations, natural selection, and time.

Honestly, if I thought horses gave birth to squirrels or that blue symbols gave birth to purple stars then I wouldnt believe the shit either. That isnt what the theory claims though.

[Whirled]

needs more wat lady in here.

http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-...fe-on-earth/2/

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Whirled [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

needs more wat lady in here.

http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-...fe-on-earth/2/

"None of them were found to be a suitable companion for the man, so God caused the man to sleep and created a woman from a part of his body (Tradition describes the part as a rib)"

Too funny. God brings a bunch of animals to Adam and says, "Hey, Adam I see you are lonely. How about some goat or dog vagina?". Imagine the look on Adam's face. Then instead of snapping his fingers and creating Eve, God has to perform some sort of surgery to remove Adam's rib to create her. This shit is classic. It's like a Monty Python skit.

[Whirled]

It's probably best to ask the author of that article. I was just sharing since it had relevant info is all.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Whirled [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's probably best to ask the author of that article. I was just sharing since it had relevant info is all.

Who was asking a question? I was just poking fun at the story of Adam and Eve.

[Whirled]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who was asking a question? I was just poking fun at the story of Adam and Eve.

oh... i gotcha... yea I could see that, hehe

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by BurgyK [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Complexity arose with time. In my opinion it started with a piece of self replicating rna and got more complex from there.

Ha!

The RNA molecule is con- structed of smaller molecules called nu- cleotides. A nucleotide is a different mol- ecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been re- ported as products of spark-discharge ex- periments or in studies of meteorites.”He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule random- ly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.