Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have




1) When did the dinosaurs first appear on Earth?

A. The oldest dinosaur types are known from rocks in Argentina and Brazil and are about 230 million years old.

B. The oldest dinosaur types are known from diners in Indonesia and are dated to about 7 years after expiration dates.

C. The oldest dinosaur types are known from rocks in Alabama and are about 160 million years old.

D. The oldest dinasaur types can not exceed 7,000 years, as that is as old as the earth is.




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
2) When developing new anti-bacterial medication it is important to re-examine sample bacteria that have been treated to note any adverse mutations because:

A. The mutated bacterium may have become immune to the treatment, negating the trial medication.

B. The bacteria may be trying to fool the medication by contorting itself.

C. It is not important to note mutations in bacteria that have adapted to certain anti-bacterial medications, because that is impossible, evolution is not real.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   


quote: Originally posted by Jamuhn
That second question is kind of funny Esoteric, and it shows that you actually don't know much about creationism. Because if you were familiar with creationism, you'd realize that they do believe in microevolution.



OK.

Then if creationism supports microevolution, and all macro-organisms are devised of micro-organisms, then why do creationists accept what can be witnessed under a microscope concerning the evolution of human cells, but dispute that the evolution has any effect on the macro-organism?



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
IMHO, The basic problem with genesis is that it was created by MAN, not "faxed from GOD". In the christian religion only GOD is perfect. Men/women are fallible, thus it only follows that a true "christian" can accept inaccuracies as the "grain of salt" that comes with a greater overall message that has helped millions. Who is any man/woman to interperate what a "day" is to god. One must get past the literal interperation and walk away with the "moral" of the STORY. So yes, Dr. Dino is a quack.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   


A. The mutated bacterium may have become immune to the treatment, negating the trial medication.


if you study this topic enough, you will come to learn that the fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is the result of a loss of information. the bacteria loses the locking mechamism that allows it to lock onto the drug.
that is a loss of information not a gain and it does not make the bacteria any more complex than it is already.

EC



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



A. The mutated bacterium may have become immune to the treatment, negating the trial medication.


if you study this topic enough, you will come to learn that the fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is the result of a loss of information. the bacteria loses the locking mechamism that allows it to lock onto the drug.
that is a loss of information not a gain and it does not make the bacteria any more complex than it is already.

EC


So, if children born tomorrow didn't have thumbs, that is neither a mutation or evolution, since it is merely less genetic information, and nothing was gained?

And, no, not all micro-organisms mutate to be less than what they were in order to not be affected by treatment.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Agreed that Dr. Dino is a quack, serving up "science" with generous helpings of blind faith and untestable assertions. It's hardly worth even a comment. And, as with so many others in the tradition of Archbishop Ussher, who established creation at 4004 BCE, no actual evidence of the event is offered. Certainly, such a significant event would leave at least some kind of trace? Even details such as the eye would bear the impressions of an intelligent designer.

"Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process [of evolution]."

This quote is from a very well-written article, "Show Me the Science," providing great refutations of creationism. Other excerpts:

"To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be...

"It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

"SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts...

"For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content.""





posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
The evidence for evolution fits into several categories: the unique universal phylogenetic tree of life, transitional forms and the fossil record, past history of vestiges / atavisms, evidence from embryology, from biogeography and global distribution of species, from anatomical and molecular paralogy / analogy, the molecular sequence evidence (cytochrome-c and pseudogenes), etc. Here are a few dozen questions taken from a summary, that six-day creationists, or any creationist who opposes macroevolution and "common descent" would find difficult to answer. Again, to answer "God did it" (although ultimately, theistic evolutionists agree) would not be a scientific explanation.

www.bringyou.to...
Why are there very many examples of shared pseudogenes between primates and humans, with one hemoglobin, the ψη-globin pseudogene shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that render it nonfunctional? Why do chimps and humans both share the same eight bp deletion in the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene that renders it nonfunctional?

Macroevolution has answers to these questions, six-day "creationism" does not. "In the beginning God created...." does not answer these scientific questions on "how" God created. All the evidence clearly points to our evolutionary ancestry and "common descent" as the best scientific explanation of the facts of natural history, biology, paleontology, genetics, and the related sciences.

mod edit for lengthy cut and paste

[edit on 14-9-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have



Why is there an enormous amount of tangible evidence and measurable phenomenon to support evolution, and little or no physical support for creation?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Why is there an enormous amount of tangible evidence and measurable phenomenon to support evolution, and little or no physical support for creation?


Because "creationism" is not based on scientific data unless that scientific data 100% supports it. Otherwise it is discarded or summarily dismissed as bad science. Evolution, on the other hand, is constantly being supported, so much so that those of us who are not Creationists totally take it for granted. Like gravity.

They just found a 32 million year old dinosaur bone? Cool. Mesozoic period? Neat. I don't shriek and say "IMPOSSIBLE! IT CAN ONLY BE 10,000 YEARS OLD MAXIMUM, JESUS TELLS ME SO!"

I don't even argue anymore with Creationists. Believe what you want, just don't expect me not to be a little amused by the utter simplicity of it.





top topics
 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join