Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: Cypress

Ancient aliens? Evolving from bacteria? Evolving from meteorites? No chemical reaction can create life. Evolutionist... Smh

a reply to: TheSorrow

The scientifically illiterate who lie and plagiarize while trying to deny things they haven't studied at all... Ughh smh

Anytime you want to actually dispute the science and explain what's wrong with it instead of tossing out ignorant, rambling one liners please feel free. We all know you're not capable of doing that though so carry on with your bad self.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Cypress

Ancient aliens? Evolving from bacteria? Evolving from meteorites? No chemical reaction can create life. Evolutionist... Smh

Until you can show evidence supporting the null hypothesis (that organic chemistry follows completely separate principles), the opinion you have put forward so far is nothing more than ignorant rhetoric.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Cypress

Ancient aliens? Evolving from bacteria? Evolving from meteorites? No chemical reaction can create life. Evolutionist... Smh

By the way, there's no such word as 'evolutionist' so please stop using it. And what the hell is does 'smh' mean?

EDIT: Oh look, you've been caught out telling untruths. Meh, another creationist troll who can't keep his lies straight.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Cypress

Ancient aliens? Evolving from bacteria? Evolving from meteorites? No chemical reaction can create life. Evolutionist... Smh

Until you can show evidence supporting the null hypothesis (that organic chemistry follows completely separate principles), the opinion you have put forward so far is nothing more than ignorant rhetoric.

The null hypothesis states that two phenomena are assumed unconnected unless otherwise demonstrated.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Cypress

Ancient aliens? Evolving from bacteria? Evolving from meteorites? No chemical reaction can create life. Evolutionist... Smh

You've never heard of the Miller Urey experiment then, which created complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors in a test tube. In other words he created organic precursors from inorganic chemicals
I thought you would have heard of this experiment if you had a science degree

a reply to: scorpio84

Hello

Basically the evidence presented for evolution is debatable and misrepresented. I am a young earth Christian. I find that secular scientific theory can also be used for creation. I had to smile at the observed and tested, as this doesn't stand up when dealing with so many evolutionist claims. It's just impossible.

It boils down to faith at both ends as neither camp have first hand experiences. What evidence that is presented is more interpretation. Therefore you are left with choice.

My choice is creation.

Regards

David

a reply to: Marduk

Hello the

That was discredited some time ago. Transpires they used a trap to collect amino acids and protect them from the environment. Therefore not credible

Sorry

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: scorpio84

Hello

Basically the evidence presented for evolution is debatable and misrepresented. I am a young earth Christian. I find that secular scientific theory can also be used for creation. I had to smile at the observed and tested, as this doesn't stand up when dealing with so many evolutionist claims. It's just impossible.

It boils down to faith at both ends as neither camp have first hand experiences. What evidence that is presented is more interpretation. Therefore you are left with choice.

My choice is creation.

Regards

David

And my choice is science. Cold hard facts in fact. By the way, there is no such word as 'evolutionist'.
Have a nice day.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Marduk

Hello the

That was discredited some time ago. Transpires they used a trap to collect amino acids and protect them from the environment. Therefore not credible

Sorry

??????????????????????????
A quick Google search on the experiment finds otherwise. Not discredited at all and still credible.

I don't believe none of them. I believe we are not from this Earth at all.

It's impossible for us to be made on this rock. So evolution applies only to the earth born animals in my opinion.
If we were made here we would have the same benefits as the animals.

1# We would have sun protected skin and eyes.
(Our skin gets cancer from long exposures from the sun)

2# 80% of world people gets back problems because of the earth gravity is to much for our body.
(We get hurt easily here, our body have not adapted to this place)

3# SAD (seasonal effective disorder)
(If we don't get any sun we die in a way to. We are the only spices to have this problem)

4# All our DNA's have parts of it that can't be traced back to Earth.

5# Fossil records - The lack of a missing link
(Fossil records showing the link between early apes and modern human have never been found.

6# Lack of body hair
(This is another example of being poorly adapted to our environment.)

I believe we will soon find our origins, and i don't think it will be here on earth.

originally posted by: Stone0cean
So evolution applies only to the earth born animals in my opinion.
If we were made here we would have the same benefits as the animals.

Benefits? We all eat, sleep and procreate. We share more than half our DNA with almost all animals on the planet, some of which match 95+%, not to mention very similar anatomy. It would be a heck of a coincidence if humans were NOT related to the rest of life on the planet.

1# We would have sun protected skin and eyes.
(Our skin gets cancer from long exposures from the sun)

Folks of African descent have melonin in the skin, which causes it to appear darker and protects from skin cancer. This makes sense for prolonged exposure to the sun in a hot environment. Likewise, folks of European descent evolved in a cooler environment, hence no need for this kind of protection. The eyes are protected. It's called eyelids. Why should you expect to be able to stare directly into the sun? What survival purpose does this serve?

2# 80% of world people gets back problems because of the earth gravity is to much for our body.
(We get hurt easily here, our body have not adapted to this place)

Too much gravity for our bodies? Can you please give us a source on that? All animals on the planet have issues like that.

3# SAD (seasonal effective disorder)
(If we don't get any sun we die in a way to. We are the only spices to have this problem)

I'm calling BS on this. Give a source. I don't buy for a second that humans are the only species that needs sunlight. Everything does. Maybe you've heard of plants? Take away their sunlight and most die. Also wouldn't it make sense for a species that evolved on earth to benefit from sunlight, rather than the inverse? Not a good argument, especially when you already made the argument that it's harmful above.

4# All our DNA's have parts of it that can't be traced back to Earth.

Source needed.

5# Fossil records - The lack of a missing link
(Fossil records showing the link between early apes and modern human have never been found.

Complete lie. 20+ species have been been found between early apes and modern humans.

6# Lack of body hair
(This is another example of being poorly adapted to our environment.)

Wrong. Human intelligence is one of their primary survival traits. Intelligence is the reason we developed clothing for protection, and body hair went away because it became useless over time (whereas in the past it was important).

I believe we will soon find our origins, and i don't think it will be here on earth.

The only chance of this happening, would be if they took DNA from apes 3 million years ago and genetically engineered it off planet. Even if that happened, we'd still be technically from earth and it doesn't explain all of the homo genus fossils that have been found. There is no other way to explain our genetic connection with chimpanzees and other great apes.

a reply to: Barcs Very well said indeed Barcs!

originally posted by: drevill
Basically the evidence presented for evolution is debatable and misrepresented.

Can you provide examples based on the evidence itself and show where it is misrepresented without fallacies or misunderstandings of the theory?

I had to smile at the observed and tested, as this doesn't stand up when dealing with so many evolutionist claims. It's just impossible.

Really? Last I checked there were somewhere in the range of 100,000 peer reviewed research papers on evolution. Can you provide examples of what makes it impossible?

It boils down to faith at both ends as neither camp have first hand experiences. What evidence that is presented is more interpretation. Therefore you are left with choice.

100,000 scientific research papers and experiments in favor of evolution.
ZERO in favor of creation.

There is no choice. There is faith and fact, which you equate illogically.

My choice is creation.

Why must it be a choice? Why not both? Couldn't god use evolution to create?

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Marduk

Hello the

That was discredited some time ago. Transpires they used a trap to collect amino acids and protect them from the environment. Therefore not credible

Sorry

Not only has Miller-Urey NOT been discredited it has been further substantiated. In 2011 vials from the original experiment were found. Do you know what they found? More amino acids were formed during the experiment than occur in nature. Furthermore, only a couple of years ago the ability of RNA to self organize was definitively proven. RNA is the precursor to DNA is you aren't aware and there is evidence that some early life on earth may have been RNA based prior to DNA evolving from RNA. So in summary... the premise that Miller-Urey has been discredited is complete garbage, it's baseless and fantasyland rambling a of proponents of YEC who are scientifically illiterate or AA proponents who may not be completely scientifically illiterate but seem to forget that the scientific method exists when the present their "evidence".

originally posted by: Stone0cean
I don't believe none of them. I believe we are not from this Earth at all.

It's impossible for us to be made on this rock.

I'm sure you can provide citations supporting this then right? Or is this all conjecture and hyperbole?

So evolution applies only to the earth born animals in my opinion.
If we were made here we would have the same benefits as the animals.

The same benefits? Aside from morphology, there are very few differences between humans and other hominids, and just as few between hominids and the rest of the mammals on Earth.

1# We would have sun protected skin and eyes.
(Our skin gets cancer from long exposures from the sun)

ALL mammals can get skin cancer. Based on your assertions then, Elephants shouldn't need to ever be in water and pigs shouldn't have to wallow in mud

2# 80% of world people gets back problems because of the earth gravity is to much for our body.
(We get hurt easily here, our body have not adapted to this place)

Bipedalism with the type of morphology seen in hominids for the past 7 MA would disagree with you here. That's not to say that H.Erectus for example, was actually better suited to bipedalism than HSS are today but we also have other attributes that through natural selection, allowed what would become US to adapt and survive. It doesn't mean we we didn't evolve right here on Earth, in E. Africa.

3# SAD (seasonal effective disorder)
(If we don't get any sun we die in a way to. We are the only spices to have this problem)

Nearly everything on Earth needs sunlight. Unless its an extremophile living on a deep ocean sulfur vent.

4# All our DNA's have parts of it that can't be traced back to Earth.

Oh?! Which parts of our DNA are not from Earth and what is your source material leading you to that conclusion?

5# Fossil records - The lack of a missing link
(Fossil records showing the link between early apes and modern human have never been found.

1. There's no such thing as a "missing link". It's a harping point for creationists who don't understand evolutionary biology and are trying to prove their position to others who are even more scientifically illiterate than those presenting the misinformation.
2. I can cite literally dozens of hominids from Sahelanthropus Tchadensis to Orrorin Tugenesis to Ardipithecus Ramidus to multiple Australopithecines and on through a multitude of members of the genus Homo who were living contemporaneously across the Earth for at least 2 MA.

Can you cite a single paper or source supporting your contention?

6# Lack of body hair
(This is another example of being poorly adapted to our environment.)

So I guess pigs, elephants, hippos, whales, dolphins, walruses (do I really need to go on?) are all not of earth as well? Our lack of body hair is one of the adaptations that allowed early hominids to become apex predators. The loss of body hair and the increase in sweat glands allowed us to chase prey over longer distances for longer periods of time. Its actually one of the best examples of adaptation in hominid evolution with several lines of corroborating evidence.

I believe we will soon find our origins, and i don't think it will be here on earth.

You're certainly welcome to that belief but without tangible evidence to support it, it doesn't mean much more than saying that Elves will reveal themselves and the portal to Middle Earth at some point in the future.

originally posted by: Stone0cean
I don't believe none of them. I believe we are not from this Earth at all.
It's impossible for us to be made on this rock. So evolution applies only to the earth born animals in my opinion.
If we were made here we would have the same benefits as the animals.

1# We would have sun protected skin and eyes.
(Our skin gets cancer from long exposures from the sun)

Except there are also benefits/protections our skin has that provide significant advantages in specific climates. It is also of note that those evolutionary traits show up in the populations where we would expect them, ie. Higher melanin tropical climates with high concentration of sunlight, Vitamin D3 collection from the sun requiring lower levels of meanin in populations in Northern areas impacted with stretches of shorter days in winter.

2# 80% of world people gets back problems because of the earth gravity is to much for our body.
(We get hurt easily here, our body have not adapted to this place)

We have adapted fine to the gravity. It does not affect millions of species ability to reproduce. Secondly, studies of astronauts in space have shown that exposure to long periods of time in lower gravity has serious negative health issues, including loss of muscle mass and osteoporosis, secretion of bone marrow into the blood and kidneys, disorientation/cognitive disorders. Weightlessness in space

3# SAD (seasonal effective disorder)
(If we don't get any sun we die in a way to. We are the only spices to have this problem)

guess you never did the elementary plant experiments huh

4# All our DNA's have parts of it that can't be traced back to Earth.

All life on earth has the same DNA makeup.....

5# Fossil records - The lack of a missing link
(Fossil records showing the link between early apes and modern human have never been found.

The missing link argument is a fallacy. Even fossil is a transitional fossil; however, since fossilization of bones is rare, not every bone to every creature that has lived is discovered, hence there will always be the mysterious "missing link". We have plenty of examples showing several stages of development from early primates to our modern form.

6# Lack of body hair
(This is another example of being poorly adapted to our environment.)

How? We have found ways to adapt to our environment that did not require it. If we didn't evolve the ability to rationalize tool use and make clothing then the individuals lacking hair necessary to survive would have died out before passing along those genes. Second point, following the last ice age, many families of organisms have seen the species with large quantities of hair be selected against. Mammoths and Rhinos are two examples. Another current example that faces extinction in the future due to climate change for similar reasons is the polar bear.

I believe we will soon find our origins, and i don't think it will be here on earth.

Hate to break it to ya, but we already know our origins and unfortunately there isn't anything special about us aside from the fact that we survived long enough to evolve rational thought enabling us to manipulate our environment to a staggering degree. Opposable thumbs helps too.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: scorpio84

Hello

Basically the evidence presented for evolution is debatable and misrepresented. I am a young earth Christian. I find that secular scientific theory can also be used for creation. I had to smile at the observed and tested, as this doesn't stand up when dealing with so many evolutionist claims. It's just impossible.

It boils down to faith at both ends as neither camp have first hand experiences. What evidence that is presented is more interpretation. Therefore you are left with choice.

My choice is creation.

Regards

David

YEC is shown to be completely false, it is simply not in the discussion. Radiometric Dating: A christian perspective. This is one of the more thorough explanations of radiometric dating I have come across and does a very good job of explaining a very complicated process without a bunch of technical jargon. It also includes a rather extensive appendix explaining common YEC misconceptions, a glossary and several citations that can be followed up on the web.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ha ha. Well

You may have heard this and regurgitated this as a fact. However Miriam Webster, the Cambridge dictionary and The Oxford dictionary would disagree with you.

Best check for yourself.

Regards

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ha ha. Well

You may have heard this and regurgitated this as a fact. However Miriam Webster, the Cambridge dictionary and The Oxford dictionary would disagree with you.

Best check for yourself.

Regards

Erm, I did. None of those dictionaries mention it because it's an experiment, not a term. And it still hasn't been debunked.